Education policy

Investing in the future

Most people would agree that government's role in providing a publicly funded educational system (kindergarten to grade 12) is an important investment that will secure the economic and social well-being of future generations. Educating young people today, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels of schooling, will provide them with the knowledge and tools they require to become productive citizens. Clearly, a highly educated society has a greater propensity to generate economic wealth, achieve higher levels of personal income, and attain a higher standard of living. A highly educated work force also provides social benefits as well and a more literate society has a greater tendency towards being a highly civil and law-abiding community. Thus, since education confers social as well as private benefits, society has a vested interest in ensuring that all of its citizens have at least a basic level of education.1

Put another way, the private rates of return on basic education are exceeded by the social rates of return (Easton 1988). Free markets encourage citizens to partake in economic activities until private marginal benefits equal private marginal costs. However, efficiency demands that social marginal benefits must equal social marginal costs. Thus, given that the social benefits of basic education exceed the private benefits, free markets might be in a position to provide only a limited degree of basic education (i.e. an under-investment in basic education). Therefore, an argument could be constructed to support a publicly funded educational system.

The government's role
in providing education

While the government's role in providing for basic education is seen as important, it is unclear what that role should entail. Theoretically, government participation in the market for education can be expressed in a number of different ways. For instance, they can finance and provide education through schools owned and operated by the government. They could allow schools both privately and publicly owned and operated. They could allow the establishment of charter schools, where local communities have greater control over how the schools in their community ought to be managed. Or, they could provide parents with vouchers that enable them to send their children to the schools of their choice. Historically, provincial governments throughout Canada have had a monopoly over the funding and delivery of public education. However, with escalating costs, poor levels of student performance, less choice, and greater dissatisfaction with the publicly operated system, most provincial governments are striving to meet parental demand for more accountability in the system.

Currently, through a complex apparatus of bureaucratic entities at both the provincial and local level, Canadian provinces administer and direct curriculum, set out teaching methods, provide funding, and test student performance. In effect, provincial governments both direct and assess the effectiveness of their administration of the educational system. According to Dan Gardner, who conducted a study on the state of the educational system in British Columbia, this type of system is nothing more than the monopoly conflict of interest (Gardner 1996). Indeed, there is an inherent conflict of interest when the ministry of Education both delivers educational services to the public and also assesses their effectiveness. Both Gardner and Helen Raham have argued that many of the inefficiencies and the lack of accountability in the educational system stem directly from the monopolistic position of the state-run educational system (Raham 1996; Gardner 1996).

In most provinces, including British Columbia, parents are deprived of choice over what type of education they wish their children to receive. Since all children have varying degrees of talents and skills, it is difficult for a standardized system of education to meet the different demands and provide the level of education suited to each child. Furthermore, without competition in the educational system, there is no incentive to innovate, no incentive for teachers to up-grade their skills, no incentive to provide students with the education appropriate to an economy increasingly based upon knowledge. Instead, government officials control and direct educational standards without consideration of parental demands. For example, a recent petition signed by over 4,000 parents in British Columbia demanded a traditional school for their children; the petition was bitterly opposed by school teachers (Luba 1998). In jurisdictions around the world where parents have greater choice over schooling and participate in how local schools operate, there is a greater degree of satisfaction with the system of education (Wylie 1997; Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education 1997a). In spite of the evidence that points to the merits of providing school choice, many provinces, including British Columbia, continue to deprive parents of choice in the educational system.

The state of education
in British Columbia

The educational system in British Columbia is under-performing. Surveys show that the vast majority of British Columbians, post-secondary educators and employers in British Columbia, are disappointed with the performance of the province's educational system. For instance, post-secondary educators believe that secondary school students are "horribly under-educated," only a small number of employers rate reading and writing skills of young people in British Columbia as acceptable, and satisfaction with the educational system is the lowest in the country (Gardner 1996). In response, the government has attempted to improve the educational system by pouring more money into it. As figure 15 illustrates, the government has increased overall spending on education by 45 percent since 1991. Moreover, spending per pupil in the province increased by almost $600 between 1991/92 and 1996/97 (Kubisheski 1998). However, last year an independent study conducted by British Columbia's Comptroller General found that the educational system failed to link the level of spending to student performance (Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education 1997b).

Indeed, national test scores show that students 13 and 16 years old in British Columbia have poor mathematical and problem-solving skills compared to students in other provinces. For instance, 1997 results show that 13-year-olds in British Columbia performed at the national average in math knowledge and below the national average for problem-solving skills. Sixteen-year-olds fared even worse, scoring below the national average for both math knowledge and problem-solving skills (Raham 1998). Moreover, as figure 16 shows, the drop-out rate of students in both elementary and secondary schools has remained consistently high throughout much of this decade. What is even more troubling is that the number of drop-outs at the elementary level is increasing (Kubisheski 1998). These results show that putting more money into the educational system in British Columbia is not helping children gain the basic skills they require in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.

If money is not the problem, then there might be something wrong with the educational system. In the Fraser Institute's 1998 study of secondary schooling in British Columbia, on a scale of one to 10, nearly half of all high schools in the province received below-average rating on their performance in several areas of education. Nearly 23 percent of high schools in the province received a failing grade for the quality of education they provided. Furthermore, in 1996/97 grade-12 students failed nearly 16,000 provincial exams (Cowley, Easton, and Walker 1998). The only examinable subject that is required of a student for graduation is grade-12 English/Communications (Easton 1998). As Professor Stephen Easton points out, since it costs about $90,000 to educate a child in British Columbia from kindergarten to grade 12, it would be "useful to know if that investment has at least met the guidelines of curriculum for each and every course our students take toward the end of their studies in high school" (Easton 1998). Clearly, the educational system in British Columbia fails to provide accountability either to parents or to the students themselves and falls far short of producing high levels of academic excellence.

Recommendations

The solution lies in replacing the structure and process of delivering education in the province of British Columbia with a system that is accountable and meets the demands and needs of individual students. We suggest that the government adopt the following policy recommendations.

1. Implement a school voucher system
   The provincial government should provide school vouchers for educational services at institutions of their choice to the parents or guardians of every student in British Columbia. If the government opens up the educational system to private suppliers, parents will have the choice of sending their children to the school that best meets the individual needs of each child. Private educators would provide educational services in exchange for the school vouchers, which they would redeem for cash from the government of British Columbia. Competition among public and private schools would force innovation, higher standards of accountability, and a higher quality of education. Parents would then be able to compare results and make informed choices. Furthermore, a private system need not be too expensive and out of reach for financially disadvantaged families. Empirical evidence shows that the average cost of private education is far less than the average cost of public education.2 In addition, competition among private suppliers would not only result in higher standards of education but would also act to lower the price of education over time.
2. Permit the establishment of charter schools
   Charter schools are another means of offering parents more choice and control over the education their children receive (Raham 1996; Freedman 1996). A group of interested parents could apply for a government charter to establish a school based on the type of education they wish their child to receive. Parents would have control over curriculum, transportation, the hiring of teachers, and the general management of the school. These schools would receive funding from the province based on enrollment but the schools would be run by local communities and not by provincial bureaucrats. Empirical evidence suggests that charter schools greatly improve the accountability and performance of the educational system. The experience with charter schools in the United States and New Zealand has been very positive in terms of the academic progress of the students and overall satisfaction with the system of education (Wylie 1997; Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education 1997a). Studies show that charter schools have lower drop-out rates, revitalize schooling in poor regions, and reduce the costs of providing quality education (Raham 1996; Freedman 1996).
3. Publish an annual "report card" on schools in British Columbia
   In 1997 the Fraser Institute published a comprehensive study on the performance of each high school in the province of British Columbia. The study graded each school on various components related to the delivery of education; these included rates of failure, average marks on provincial exams, and graduation rates. The purpose of the study was to provide parents with children in school with information on how their child's school was performing and to provide parents about to send a child to school with an idea of which schools would provide a good education. The study stressed the importance of assessing how schools perform their duties, not simply on how the children perform (Cowley, Easton, and Walker 1998). We recommend that the government of British Columbia publish annual report cards, modelled on the criteria used in the Fraser Institute's, A Secondary Schools Report Card for British Columbia, on the performance of elementary and secondary schools in British Columbia. This annual report should be conducted by an independent authority, perhaps by the province's auditor general. This kind of evaluation would help to restore accountability and confidence in British Columbia's educational system.

Conclusion

The educational system in British Columbia is failing those whom it is supposed to educate. In response, the government continues to pour more money into a broken system. It has allowed education costs to spiral but the system continues to falter and produce poor results. The government of British Columbia should, therefore, introduce more competition in the market for education through either a voucher system or charter schools. This would encourage more innovation, more accountability in the system, and provide higher academic results. For continuing to increase funding of a system that yields poor results and for failing to provide parents with more choice and accountability in the educational system, the British Columbia government deserves an F for its education policy.

1. However, this is not the case for post-secondary education. The returns from a university or college-level education are almost entirely personal as the earning potential of university and college graduates is higher than that of those without post-secondary education. Therefore, arguments in favour of government intervention in the market for post-secondary education is without merit. See Constantos and West 1991.
2. Evidence from the United States shows that the average cost of a private education is cheaper than a public school education. In fact, a recent study conducted by the Cato Institute found that the total average tuition fee at private elementary and secondary schools in the United States was US$3,116 per year while a the education of a student in public school cost US$6,857 per year (Boaz and Barrett 1996).

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.