Background

Performance of the Canadian school system

Canada's education system is in need of reform to serve the nation well in the next century. Both parents and public are becoming increasingly concerned that our students are emerging without the competitive skills needed to survive in the global marketplace.

Canada ranks among the world's highest spenders on education, yet international testing shows Canadian students falling behind their counterparts in Europe and the Pacific Rim.     Thomas T. Schweitzer, The State of Education in Canada, (Montreal: Renouf, 1995), pp. 37-47-Note      The business community finds our graduates unprepared for the challenges of the work world. Post-secondary instructors discover too many high school graduates lack pre-requisite skills in basic literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving. Parents complain of vague reporting methods, low academic expectations, lack of choices, and lack of meaningful involvement in school decision-making.

In a society changing at an explosive pace, Canadian schools are being asked to turn their attention to social problems, to teach new skills of technology, collaboration, and teamwork, to deliver new curriculum on environmental concerns and issues of violence, racism, and equity. While the number of instructional hours in Canadian classrooms has declined and core content has suffered, our competitors are introducing more rigour at all levels of their curriculum. Canada fares poorly in comparison with other industrialized nations on richness of curriculum and the level at which topics are introduced as calculated by the International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement (IEA) and other studies.     Economic Council of Canada, A Lot to Learn: Education & Training in Canada, 1992, pp. 13-15; and Alberta Education & Alberta Chamber of Resources, International Comparisons in Education, 1992, pp. 12-22. -Note    A six country comparison of study habits placed Canadian students last, with less than 25 percent averaging more than two hours of homework daily.  Alison L. Sprout, “Do U.S. Schools make the Grade?” Fortune, Spring 1990, pp. 50-52. -Note     Immigrant students find our schools “too easy”  Lee Gunderson, Educating ESL Students, University of British Columbia, 1995. -Note      and Canadian students receive half as many hours of math study as their Pacific Rim counterparts.     Harold Stevenson, Study of Math Achievement in Alberta Schools, University of Michigan, 1993. -Note    .If gaps such as these persist, our graduates will be disadvantaged in a global economy.

The search for better education is driven by the link between schooling and the economy, between higher levels of education and future success. This means the scrutiny of national and individual school performance will continue to intensify. Furthermore, there has never been a time in the history of public education when parents have been so prepared to control the destiny of their child's education. Today's boomer parents are demanding a world class education for their smaller families. Economist David Foot quotes Queens' sociologist Mary Maxwell in his book Boom, Bust & Echo (1996), “The newest wave of parents are people with all their eggs in one basket, and they can't afford to drop it.”

As futurist Peter Drucker foresees the new knowledge economy, “Education will become the centre of society, and the school its paramount institution.”    Peter Drucker, “The Age of Social Transformation,” Atlantic Monthly, November 1994, p. 66. -Note   Society asks a lot of our schools, and many parents and critics find them wanting. This angst was reflected in For the Love of Learning, the Ontario royal commission report on the state of education.

We believe in no uncertain terms that almost all students have the capacity to complete secondary school with a great deal more academic excellence, more rigorous analytical capacity, more genuine intellectual understanding and power of problem-solving.

One complaint we heard repeatedly was that the public education system no longer seems responsible to the public. . . . There exists widespread unease that schools have become a kingdom unto themselves, with little need to report to parents or the world at large what they are doing with our kids and whether or not they are doing it successfully. (For the Love of Learning, 1994)

Barriers to excellence

There are many barriers in the public school system to increased performance and productivity. Bureaucracy stresses conformity and process over product. Collective agreements serve the needs of adults, not students. Unions oppose measures of performance and incentives for excellence. Teacher tenure rewards time, not talent. School funding bears no ties to performance and, until recently, the customer has kept on coming, whether or not students were learning successfully.

Provincial departments, school boards, administrators, teacher unions, and support staff all compete for resources and control, and education gridlock is experienced at all levels. Quebec's 1996 review of provincial education observed that “schools are the object of over-regulation by the Department of Education on one hand, and by the constraints of province-wide collective agreements on the other.”  Commission des etats generaux sur l'education, Expose de la situation, Quebec Government, Ministry of Education, January 1996. -Note      Time and again, innovative solutions to school problems have run afoul of inflexible policies and contracts, as the following example illustrates.

In June of this year, parents, students and teachers in Mission, B.C. were protesting the loss of the semester system at their high schools. It seems that although all education partners agreed that the timetable was beneficial in improving student achievement, the local collective agreement clauses for teacher preparation time were contravened by this schedule. The contract had no provision for flexible arrangements to be developed at the individual school site even where agreement could be reached by all concerned. Consequently the schools must resort to a linear timetable and a poorer learning situation.

Both bureaucracy and collectivism resist change. Former U.S. Education Secretary, William J. Bennett, once described the two million-strong teachers' union, the National Education Association, as the “greatest single obstacle to education reform.” According to Bennett, “Almost without fail, whenever a worthwhile school proposal or legislative initiative is under consideration, those with a vested interest in the status quo will use political muscle to block reform.”

The Canadian Teachers' Federation and its provincial affiliates also employ their substantial resources to maintain the status quo. The budget of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, now approaching $20 million, devotes a mere 14.2 percent to professional development and, as graph 1 shows, a far greater proportion to bargaining, union functions, and maintaining its policy-making influence to protect the interests of its members. B.C. Teachers' Federation, 1996 AGM Supplementary Financial Report. -Note

Click here to view Graph 1: BCTF General Operating Fund, 1995-96, Projected Expenditures

As the author of Secondary Schools in Canada (1995) observed, “Teachers' organizations are a powerful political force affecting the lives of teachers and students. In addition to negotiating agreements about salary and working conditions, teachers' unions . . . affect the direction of education policies. . . . They constitute another centralizing force that constrains the options available at the school.” Jane Gaskell, Secondary Schools in Canada, p. 17. -Note

In addition to opposing national standards and testing, published school results, and other measures to improve cost-effectiveness, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and its provincial counterparts have mounted a strong campaign to limit school choice. Millions of dollars were invested over the past two years to promote the success of public schools and oppose “privatization, including charter schools, vouchers and contracting out, agenda-driven governance such as increased parental control, site-based management.”  Canadian Teachers' Federation National Issues Campaign, December 1995. -Note   Each provincial federation was expected to participate in the public relations campaign. Over $1.6 million was spent in B.C. alone this year on television and newspaper ads, conferences and public forums, editorial pieces and brochures sent home through the schools. If these efforts are successful, most public schools and their students will remain prisoners of mediocrity and educational gridlock.

“Children should not have to run from school to school shopping for a better education.”

(Alberta Teachers’ Association President, Bauni Mackay in an address to the Conference Board of Canada, Vancouver, April 17, 1994.)

“Providing choices, such as traditional schools, will destroy public education.”

(BCTF President Alice McQuaide “Teachers urged to take a stand,” Vancouver Sun, March 18, 1996.)

Choice as a Tool for Change

Advantages of school choice

With the crisis of confidence in our public schools, many parents who can afford to do so are moving to the private system to ensure academic success for their children. The inability of the “one-size-fits-all” school to meet the rising and widely varied expectations of parents has generated a growing demand for school choice options. A recent Gallup poll found that 70 percent of the under-30 population favoured school choice, with the highest approval rate among parents of school-age children.

If “much of the enthusiasm for choice is rooted in frustration with the inequality and the rigidity of public schooling,”   Jane Gaskell, Dilemmas of Educational Choice, 1995, p. 18. -Note    then school choice has the potential to override this educational bureaucracy, stimulate productivity and innovation, increase efficiency and effectiveness and foster more diversity of programs for students. A significant finding of a recent major Canadian research study    Jane Gaskell, Secondary Schools in Canada, 1995, p. 33. -Note    was that strong parental support is a key element in highly successful schools. When parents actively select a school for its approach to learning, that school and its students have increased opportunities for success. One of the “exemplary secondary schools” in this study is Langley Fine Arts School, in Langley, British Columbia.

The entire K-12 school is an alternative program devoted to the arts. Open to students of Langley district and beyond, this public school was founded in 1985 to meet the demand from students who want concentrated professional instruction in drama, music, visual arts and dance. All 700 students are there because they want to be. They have chosen the school, not the other way around. Their workload is daunting and intense. The academic subjects are compressed in order to allow secondary students to devote 60 percent of their time studying the arts; sports and some electives have been eliminated. This school has focus. “The public school has tried to be all things to all people for too long,” says principal Peter Beckett. “By specializing, schools can attract like-minded students, even bring back students who have left the public system.” In fact, as many as 20 percent of Langley Fine Arts students were formerly homeschoolers, dropouts, or attending private schools. The current waiting list for this school is 300.   Langley fine arts school draws raves,” Vancouver Sun, May 5, 1995. -Note

The success of Langley Fine Arts School underlines the need for more specialization among schools. The choice theory assumes there is no universal “best” school model. Schools have the freedom to offer programs within a framework of standards set by the government which provides the funding. The route to achieving those goals is designed by the individual school based on the needs of their particular students, and continued school funding depends upon measured success. Parents are encouraged to choose schools not on proximity but based on the school's ability to meet their child's needs. This fundamental shift creates entrepreneurial schools with a strong incentive to design innovative programs, operate at maximum efficiency, and constantly strive for higher learning gains. If school choice projects are carefully monitored, the results can add to our knowledge about effective instruction and delivery of curriculum, and about what works for which students. The insights gained can be replicated in other schools across the system. Thus, school choice provides both research data and marketplace incentive to generate improved educational services for all students.

One of the best summaries of the advantages of choice was offered by the former U.S. Secretary of Education, L. Cavazos, in an international study of school choice, Choice in Six Nations.    Charles Glenn, Choice in Six Nations, Washington: U.S. Government Printers, 1989, Foreword. -Note   He pointed out that choice offers:

1.incentives to all schools to discover what works

2.more diversity for parents

3. better match of student and programs

4.increased parental support

5.purpose for students attending

6.improved school climate

7.enhanced school leadership

8.improved learning results

The summit of education ministers convened by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in January 1996 challenged governments to “establish an environment that encourages individuals to take greater responsibility for their own and their children's learning and, where appropriate, permit choice as to where they acquire the learning they need.”   OECD Newsletter, Innovations in Education, vol. 1, Paris, Spring 1996. -Note   In Canada, the Economic Council and the Corporate-Higher Learning Forum have encouraged the proliferation of educational choice. The Forum recommended: “Encourage schools to define their mission, to select the methods of attaining it, and to assume responsibility for results. Clients should be able to choose the institution that best satisfies their need and aspirations. This implies real differences among institutions and honest information about their services.”   James Downey, “To Be Our Best: Learning for the Future: Corporate-Higher Learning Forum.” Montreal, 1990. -Note      The Economic Council of Canada urged the introduction of school choice in its report, A Lot to Learn:

A more transparent system—one that allowed more choice and differentiation—would help involve parents and students more than does the rather inflexible system that is currently in place. In our view, provincial policy and school board practice should be designed to increase the opportunity of choice of school for all parents and their children within the public school system.

The advantages of freedom of choice among schools in the public system include increased accountability of principals and teachers for educational outcomes. It would place a high value on excellent teaching. It would help to decentralize responsibility to local schools and parents. It would help to identify weak spots in the system so that remedies could be introduced to upgrade schools that are performing poorly. . . . School choice would also offer the opportunity for and means of assessing differences in teaching approaches, in school ethos, and in school organization and other factors that affect educational outcomes. Taken further, a system based on school choice would encourage greater differentiation among schools, enabling students to achieve a closer match of their interests and abilities with program offerings.     Economic Council of Canada, A Lot to Learn: Education & Training in Canada, 1992, p. 54. -Note

The choice continuum in public education

For many, the debate on school choice is now shifting to the question of what kind of choice is appropriate. In practice, public school choice encompasses a cluster of initiatives: open boundaries, decentralized decision-making, alternative and magnet schools, home schooling, charter schools and vouchers. Each requires some structural governance changes and offers varying degrees of autonomy and accountability along the choice continuum.

Decentralized decision-making, or school based management encourages more diversity among schools within a district, permitting schools to make decisions about program delivery and budget spending and to enter into community partnerships. In its strongest form, governing school councils comprised of administrators, parents, staff, and community set school goals, budget, and policy and oversee their implementation within the constraints of collective agreements and district and provincial policy.

Open boundaries permit parents and students to select schools within and sometimes outside the district; students are not required to attend in their own attendance catchment area.

Alternative models and magnet schools are specially designed public schools that offer unique programs or unique delivery of programs to meet the needs of a particular clientele (e.g. drop-outs, French immersion, fine arts focus, and so forth).

Home schooling students are considered part of the public system if they register with a public school even though they pursue their education courses at home. On-line instructional services are becoming an important component of this choice.

Charter schools are public schools granted autonomy by an authorizing body (usually the school board or the state), substantially deregulated and wholly governed by their own councils. A performance-based contract is reviewed on a regular basis in order for the charter to be renewed.

Vouchers/scholarships: governments provide parents directly with vouchers to cover all or a portion of the cost of educating their child in a public or private institution.

The degree of accountability and autonomy of the various types of choice models are represented by graph 2.

Click here to view Graph 2: School Choice Models in Extent of Autonomy and Accountability

International trends to choice

The world has changed, forcing all our institutions to revisit the way they do things. Schools are no exception. (Keith Geiger, president, National Education Association)  National Education Association Media Release, April 16, 1996. -Note

Choice is on the education agenda around the world. Our competitors are creating schools for tomorrow through decentralization and school choice. Many nations, including Sweden, Britain, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United States are providing more autonomy for schools while holding them accountable for results. Their new models build in powerful rewards for school success and real consequences for failure—incentives unheard of in Canada.

Click here to view Table 1: Percentage of 15-year-old Pupils Achieving Graded GCSE Results in 1995 in England

After years of failed attempts at improvement and reform, the British Parliament passed the Education Reform Act (1988), authorizing autonomous fully-funded public schools that receive their funding directly from Parliament. These self-governing “grant maintained” schools allow choices and alternatives within the public system, and are strictly and immediately accountable to parents and their communities. School accountability is reinforced by the adoption of a national curriculum and by publishing “league tables” annually, which reveal school academic standings and exam results. More than 1.3 million parents in England choose to send their children to these schools. The 1,100 grant maintained schools educate almost one third of the school population and outperform their counterparts run by the local education authorities, the equivalent of Canadian school boards.

New Zealand began its drive for “Tomorrow's Schools” in 1989—completely decentralizing its public school system by turning school management over to individual school councils, abolishing district school boards, and providing for open choice of schools. In its progress report Three Years On, the government reaffirmed that “to give greater parental choice and more self-management to schools, enrolment schemes are now a prerogative of individual schools,” although legislation introduced in 1996 clarified that local neighbourhood children may not be involuntarily displaced by open choice enrolment. The government also introduced National Education Guidelines in 1993 against which schools are held to account. This move to site-based decision-making and parental choice has not gone unchallenged by New Zealand's teacher unions. But, in the words of former education minister, Lockwood Smith, “Someone must decide which school a student must attend, and someone must decide what the ethos of that school will be. And either those choices are to be exercised by the state, or they are to be exercised by parents. . . . When the power to make those decisions was transferred to parents, it was inevitable there would be a reaction from those who would lose power.”   Lockwood Smith, “New Zealand Makes a Commitment to Parent Power,” November 3, 1995. -Note

The longest running school choice experiment in the United States provided a prototype for current moves to reinvent a failing U.S. public school system. In 1974, New York City's Central Park East became the first of some 50 locally managed alternative schools and small schools-within-schools to follow a central curriculum but offer specialized delivery and programs. District parents were encouraged to shop for the school which best suited their child's needs and the East Harlem District became a dramatic success story after years of abysmal school results. Twenty years later, the documented evidence is hard to refute. Although two-thirds of the students are poor enough to be eligible for free lunch programs, 20 percent of the students are classified as “special needs,” and 85 percent are Hispanic or black; the graduation and college success rates for the Central Park East alternative schools are double that of the district. As Deborah Meier, director of Central Park East schools, puts it, “They come to us looking remarkably like the assortment of students in the city as a whole. They leave, however, with substantially greater life choices.” By the early 1990s, however, 1,000 students from more privileged New York neighbourhoods were commuting to East Harlem schools. Meier's current project is to raise the number of alternative schools from 50 to 100 to demonstrate that “public schools can be creative, idiosyncratic, interesting places of academic excellence without losing their publicness.”   Deborah Meier, “How Our Schools Could Be,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 76, no. 5, January 1995. -Note

Such magnet schools spread gradually across the United States, but it was not until 1991 that school choice surfaced on the national education agenda. The State Department of Education designed America 2000, an education strategy to “restructure schools so they can focus on results, give each school's principal and teachers the discretion to make more decisions and the flexibility to use resources in more productive ways to improve learning; and to give parents more responsibility for their children's education through magnet schools and public school choice.” Importantly, achievement gains were to be published and those schools that could not produce effective gains in learning would lose clientele and funding.

“We can no longer afford an education system that takes its customers for granted.”

(Al Shanker, president, American Federation of Teachers)

The first U.S. legislation to permit charter schools—autonomous public schools of choice—emerged the same year in Minnesota and spread rapidly to 26 states; over 280 charter schools are now established. In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Clinton urged every state to “give all parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend, and to let teachers form new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good job.”

Sweden, meanwhile, has embarked on an experiment with education vouchers. They were part of a “decentralization” plan to shore up mediocre performance on international testing and establish greater fiscal accountability, flexibility, and educational choices. The Education Act (1992) required municipal authorities to give a per student grant to independent schools based on 85 percent of the cost of educating pupils in the grundskola or basic public school system. According to this law, “school choice can stimulate greater involvement in education on the part of parents and wider response to the preferences of pupils and parents on the part of schools and municipal authorities.” The voucher provisions stimulated a 20 percent increase in independent school enrolment which comprises only 1.1 percent of all pupils. Although a 1993 survey conducted by the National Agency for Education found 85 percent of Swedes valued their new school choice rights, a new government reduced the voucher allotment to 75 percent in 1994.

Canadian school choice developments

Historical choices

Questions about school choice and the right to diversity in schooling are imbedded in Canada's history. Until recently, such questions revolved around religion, language and culture.

The early choices were limited to public or private education. Canada's first school was founded by Jesuit missionaries in Quebec City in 1635. The first schools in Ontario, all privately run, were the only options available to parents in the 1700's. Canada's first public schools were established by law in Ontario in 1807, but restricted to children of “leaders in the community,” so that even as late as 1846 half of Ontario's children attended private schools.  Bruce Wilkenson, Educational Choice, Montreal: Renouf, 1994, p. 51. -Note

Religious choice in public education is a factor of history and geography, and the degree of choice varies considerably from province to province. The 1867 BNA Act required provinces to support denominational schools where they existed. Religious freedom in some provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland was interpreted as the right to attend publicly funded denominational schools. In 1977, B.C. granted up to 50 percent funding for independent schools. In other provinces, religious schools are classified as independent private schools, not entitled to receive funding from tax revenues.

Choice in language of instruction triggered further Canadian debate. The “Manitoba schools question” caused a bitter controversy in the 1890's over the right of Catholics in Manitoba to publicly funded French language schooling. Fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and England's Privy Council, the right to schools of choice became the central issue of the 1896 general election. Following the election, Manitoba was required to provide bilingual instruction whenever 10 or more children spoke a language other than English. Official bilingualism policy has led to federal support for French immersion schools today.

First Nations people gained control over their schools in 1973 when the Department of Indian Affairs adopted this policy, ending many years of the infamous church schools in aboriginal communities. Native schools under local band control were developed to keep traditions and languages alive and promote pride in the native community and culture. They were seen as a positive option for native children who had been previously forced to attend schools where they had been singularly unsuccessful.

Contemporary Choices

Today, a broader range of choices is being demanded for Canadian public schools. These alternatives revolve around questions of school ethos, discipline, standards, timetables, methods of instruction, special magnet programs and degree of parental involvement. The schools offer unique programs, instructional philosophy or scheduling, often targeting a particular clientele. Some examples include:

•year-round schools

•traditional schools

•all girl schools

•fine arts schools

•technical schools

•schools for street youth

•schools for gay youth

•Montessori schools

•work experience schools

•science and technology schools

•virtual schools

•mandarin immersion

•schools for the gifted

•music schools

•sports schools

In addition to discovering greater program diversity, parents may now obtain the information they require to compare the academic success of individual schools. As more governments make publication of school exam results available, this information is generating further pressure for school choice.

Quebec began publishing high school exam standings for both public and private schools in 1993, assisting parents in school selection. British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Alberta now make the release of this information mandatory on a district basis. The Calgary Public School Board established a “Dial a School” service in 1994, where parents could call to compare results on provincial exams as an aid to school selection. Some jurisdictions have expanded performance information to include elementary schools also. Alberta's Accountability in Education Policy Framework (1995) requires school boards to publish annual profiles with performance measures across the district including test results, improvement plans, and public confidence levels. When some districts balked at releasing school-by-school results, Alberta Education provided the information to the public. The North York Board of Education in Ontario offers an annual School & System Profiles of Achievement containing four-page profiles of each school in a standardized format for easy comparison, including socioeconomic data, mathematics and literacy test scores, special programs, and school goals.

Even armed with information, however, parent access to choice varies widely. In Quebec, where the right of parents to select schools in keeping with their educational values was recognized in the early 1980s, school boards responded to intense competition from private schools by offering a proliferation of special purpose public schools such as international schools, schools for the gifted, and schools for the sciences and arts. These were generally selective programs, based on student ability, but some schools offered a specific educational philosophy and were open to any student. In other provinces, access to alternative public schools varies widely. In some urban districts, open enrolment is standard practice, provided space is available. In others, movement beyond the neighbourhood school is severely restricted through deliberately onerous transfer processes. The Edmonton Public School Board, with nearly 200 schools and 80,000 students, has been a leader in providing choice. Parents may obtain scores on province-wide performance tests for grades 3, 6, 9, and 12 to compare school results and are free to send their children to any school in the city, provided space is available. In all, some 30 percent of Edmonton's public elementary students and 52 percent of its secondary students attend other than their neighbourhood schools. Ibid. -Note

In rural areas, practical considerations such as transportation and fewer available schools restrict choice. Parents in Canning and Kentville, Nova Scotia, have found the limited program offerings at their small high schools ill-suited to university-bound students and those with special needs. But forcing the new cutting-edge superschool at Horton, a mere 12-minute bus ride away, to make room for their students has turned into a major political dogfight. The board has thus far refused to make parents a commitment for equal opportunity for the children of Canning and Kentville.     “Board votes against expanding new Horton,” Halifax Chronicle-Herald, June 27, 1996. -Note

Some jurisdictions permit out-of-district enrolments as well as interdistrict. Manitoba has the most generous school choice legislation in Canada. By September 1996, parents will be permitted to select any school in the province, provided there is enrolment space and the parent assumes transportation responsibilities. Only Alberta has guaranteed parents the opportunity to establish innovative new public schools of choice through its recent charter schools legislation.

The demand for more school choice is evident across Canada. Monique Begin, co-chair of the Ontario Royal Commission on Education (1994) which received some 5,000 presentations, reported that parents who spoke to the commission “demanded choices in schools and teaching methods, and the chance to participate in their children's education.”      “Ontario Royal Commission on Learning,” CP Newswire Service, February 16, 1994. -Note  The B.C. government's Restructuring Public Education Consultation Process (February 1996) received numerous submissions from parent groups around the province seeking more choices and alternatives. Ron Babiuk of Alberta Education's Charter Schools Division has received inquiries from as far afield as the Atlantic provinces.

Parents in Guelph, Ontario recently held a candle-light vigil to protest their trustees' rejection of a traditional school proposal. R.H King Academy, a highly structured public high school in Scarborough, has gone to a lottery system for dealing with next year's heavily oversubscribed registrations. Parents line up in sub-zero temperatures for a coveted spot at Richview Collegiate Institute in Etobicoke. In Surrey, B.C., parents camp out for several days to secure a registration place for their children at Surrey Traditional School. What is so “alternative” about these public schools? Only that they were formed with a mission to emphasize discipline, homework, teacher-led instruction, high academic standards, a dress code, and strong parent involvement. Around the country, whenever a school district opens up such a school, parents clamour to enrol their children. But for every alternative public school established, there are many stories of failure to act.

Canadian school boards respond in curious ways to this demand for more choice. Frequently lacking policy to deal with requests for alternative programs in a consistent fashion employing due process and objective criteria, the reaction of some boards is defensive and political. Often the system seems more intent on penalizing excellence than rewarding it. Parents presenting the proposals may be characterized as elitist, old fashioned, and enemies of public education. Trustees point out that since the values being sought are important in all of our schools, alternatives are unnecessary. District superintendents criticize the structured teaching style being demanded while simultaneously asserting “the assumption that such instruction is not an integral part of current district programs is false.”    Superintendent Chris Kelly, Report to the Richmond Board of Trustees on Proposal for Alternative Program, January 1996, p. 23. -Note

A group of 50 families in Barrie, Ontario, who had the temerity to propose a Waldorf-styled experiential school with mandatory parental involvement and an extended curriculum to their Simcoe board were scathingly shot down in September 1995. Not only was their well-researched modest proposal for a small annex twinned to a neighbourhood school rejected, but a further motion was passed prohibiting the group from re-submitting the proposal during the tenure of that board.

The same year, parents and business leaders of Brampton, Ontario, put together a remarkable community secondary school proposal, pairing a vacant downtown school building with YMCA sports facilities, college computer labs, and city museum, art gallery and library. This proposed Central Community Academy & Co-Op Program      Ontario Alternate Education Association, Central Community Academy & Co-op Program Proposal, Brampton, September 1995. -Note     was to combine the mandated curriculum with a community service and job experience program. All the necessary agreements were in place, $800,000 in start-up funding had been secured, the city Board of Trade was on side with this creative partnership, and 18 regional superintendents endorsed what was described as a “win-win” project. The Peel Board of Education turned it down. No reasons were given.

In B.C., where the mandate for education requires the system to “provide parents and students with a choice of programs to accommodate varying parent and student expectations,” Chilliwack trustees ignored a district survey showing overwhelming parental support for the choice of a traditional model school (Yes: 1375; No: 349) in rejecting the proposed school. Last fall, education minister Charbonneau asserted on national radio, “It is quite possible in B.C. for a group of activist parents with the betterment of their children's education in mind to work through their local school board and their Ministry to accomplish what they would like.”    CBC Morningside, October 11, 1995. -Note     Yet within the year, 10 B.C. school districts had rejected traditional school proposals submitted by committees representing hundreds of supportive parents in each district. So, despite obvious demand, lengthy waiting lists, and multi-day camp-outs for registration spots, there remain but a few choices in a few districts for a few parents. Parents who have no options once these requests are denied are leaving the public system. Independent school enrolment is rising in B.C. at a record rate of 7.3 percent annually and home schooling growth is now increasing at 33 percent annually. B.C. Ministry of Education, Annual Report, 1993-94, 1995, p. 28. -Note 

Click here to view Table: Alternative School Waiting Lists

“Calls for school choice must not be met with a passionate defense of the status quo, but with an inquiring, open stance and a willingness to look for alternatives that can work within the public school system."    Jane Gaskell, Dilemmas of Educational Choice, Canadian Teachers' Federation, 1995, p. 18. -Note   But the system, it seems, much prefers the status quo. What appears to be lacking is the tool to force the existing system to accommodate the demands of parents for broader choice. That tool is the charter school. Charter school legislation offers the Canadian public school system the greatest hope for change.

Charter Schools

Charter schools are a powerful tool to provide communities, schools, and teachers maximum flexibility to give students more opportunity to reach high standards of achievement, to improve teaching and learning in our schools. (President Clinton, 1995)

What is a charter school?

Charter schools offer a mechanism for transforming the school system by allowing educators and parents freedom to create new learning environments for children within the public domain. Charters are public schools which operate on a performance contract negotiated with their elected school board or the provincial government. These schools are responsible for the mandated curriculum, but are formed around a specific education mission or philosophy. They hire staff to implement that program, enjoy considerable professional autonomy from regulations of central district administration, and directly manage their own funding allocations. Attendance is by choice. Charter schools may not charge tuition fees, teach religion, or discriminate in admissions. They are rigorously monitored and to retain their charter, schools must meet all specified performance standards and continue to attract students.

No two charters are alike. The school may be a completely new entity, an existing school and staff, or even a “school within a school.” Charters are found at all levels of the K-12 spectrum. Many are designed to fill a niche in the school market. Some have a special focus such as technology or performing arts; others serve a special population such as drop-outs or dyslexics. Some have been established to implement a particular style of pedagogy or innovative teaching methods with a degree of consistency that could not be achieved in a typical school. Some are housed in regular neighbourhood schools, but many are in non-traditional settings such as shopping malls or recreation centres. Enrolments range from 20 to 1,400 students. Many offer the best of alternative education approaches, such as small classes and hands-on learning. All operate with true site-based management, freedom from district bureaucracy, and a contract that demands results.

A key feature is their funding mechanism. Charter school funding must be based on the same per capita funding as other district schools. The significant difference is in the direct allocation of funding. It is estimated that only two-thirds of the per-pupil allotment reaches regular schools through the layers of bureaucracy, but charter schools control close to 100 percent of their funding. Charter schools then have the option of seeking out the best and most cost-effective services to purchase, either from the school district or another competing source. Charters may also raise funds, as may any school, through private sector donations, but not through tuition charges.

Because charter schools will fundamentally change the way we educate public school students, understanding the nature and potential of this powerful tool for change is essential for all public policy makers and educators.

Click here to view Table: The Spread of Charter Schools

Why charters?

The statutory purpose of the Charter Schools Act is to improve pupil achievement and provide additional academic choices for parents and pupils. (Arizona State, 1996)

A board or the Minister may establish a charter school if . . . the school will have significant support from the community . . . and the program will potentially improve the learning of students. (Alberta Schools Act)

Charter legislation makes it clear that the purpose of charter schools is to improve choices and improve learning. By creating competition for enrolment and innovative pilot models, charter schools generate pressure for higher performance in every school. The charter concept represents a major shift in education reform; by challenging the exclusive franchise of the regular public school system and stimulating changes to schools across the system in response, it is aimed at systemic reform.

Charters provide a hammer for parents when school boards are reluctant to provide alternatives. Parents of St. Paul, Minnesota had been denied a Montessori school on the grounds that staffing, facilities, and transportation were unavailable. Then the state levelled the playing field for parents by passing charter school legislation. When the parent delegation returned to the school board armed with the new bill, the previous objections to the school had miraculously disappeared. When Edmonton parents and educators sought a traditional model school and an all-girls school in 1995, Alberta's new charter legislation encouraged the board to quickly grant approval in order to ensure the board retained the funding dollars.

In addition, the charter option strengthens public education by introducing the very elements which research shows creates successful schools. Studies on effective schools, such as the exhaustive research by Chubb and Moe (1990), point to a consistency in school ethos, strong parental support, a high degree of site-based autonomy and school accountability as critical factors in achieving superior learning outcomes. The charter school provides opportunities for each of these elements to occur.

Consistent Ethos

The charter allows a unique and innovative environment to be created and spelled out clearly in advance. School philosophy, code of conduct, dress code, and learning climate are clearly articulated and understood by staff, students, and parents.

Strong Parental Support

Exercising school choice engenders healthy parent support. Parents are represented on the school's governing council, and many charter schools actively involve parents in school programs and learner support through school-parent compacts.

More Autonomy

Self-governing councils have the authority to ensure decisions consistently support the school's mission and meet the needs of the students. By receiving their per-pupil funding directly and by-passing the levels of bureaucracy faced by regular schools, charter schools can allocate more resources to instruction. Strongly motivated and innovative educators have the power of waiver over many of the stultifying regulations imposed by central administration and collective agreements.

Greater Accountability

Charter schools must focus on learning results and consumer satisfaction. Their continued existence depends upon getting outcomes specified in their charters and attracting voluntary enrolment. This provides a powerful incentive for excellence that regular schools lack.

Detroit superintendent of schools, Dr. David Snead, neatly summed up his reasons for endorsing charters in his district when he addressed Canada's first charter school conference in Vancouver last year: “They give parents a greater say in the educational process by allowing them to select the school that best meets the needs of their children. In addition, they are not bound by the bureaucratic rules and regulations of schools and unions, which makes it possible for teachers to focus on children. And charter schools are free to innovate with more flexibility in the curriculum and smaller class size. As a result, students have greater enthusiasm for learning and experience fewer behavioral problems.”

Examples

There is perhaps no better example of charter school success than the Vaughn Street School featured in Time magazine's cover story of October 31, 1994.

Vaughn Street School

In a barrio outside Los Angeles lies the Vaughn Next Century Learning Centre. Of its 1,107 students, 931 are Hispanics who speak limited English. Ninety five percent of the pupils are so poor they receive free breakfast and lunch at the school. Many come from single parent families without high school education. Staff turnover rates hovered around 50 percent, and the administrators regularly received death threats. The massive education code and district bureaucracy hamstrung even simple tasks like repairing broken school windows or school equipment.

Yvonne Chan, who took over as principal in the early 1990s, set out to transform the school into an environment where learning could occur. When California passed charter legislation in 1992, Chan immediately applied, and in 1993 she obtained the charter which set her school on the path to success.

Under charter terms, parents were required to sign a three-page contract committing them to play an active role in their children's education. In return Chan set up a one-stop shopping centre at the school for parents, integrating education and social services to families. By 1994 parent volunteers were running the playground and a menu of extracurricular programs. Five thousand hours of parent commitment had begun to transform Vaughn Street School for students, families, and teachers.

Under the terms of the charter, Chan is free to hire and fire her teachers and to lengthen their school day and year. She also has raised their salary above district levels and reduced class sizes by hiring more teachers. Teachers are free to determine the best instructional methods and resources to get the best results from their students.

A school charter means budget autonomy. Vaughn Street receives all of its per-pupil funding directly, by-passing the district. By tendering bids for payroll and cafeteria services, Chan found suppliers willing to charge less than the district contractors. In the first year as a charter school, Chan saved over $1.2 million which was ploughed into a computer lab, more teachers, and an addition of 14 new classrooms.

Achievement scores have risen from the lowest in the state to near state average. Attendance has skyrocketed. Children's lives are being turned around.

“The charter takes the handcuffs off the principal, the teachers, and the parents—the people who know kids best,” says Chan. “In return, we are held responsible for how well the kids do.” An exchange which seems to benefit everyone.

In 1995, Alberta's Minister of Education, Halvar Jonson, offered his government's rationale for introducing Canada's pioneer charter school legislation: “Charter schools are another enhancement to the public school system. They are an opportunity to seek innovative methods and learning environments that will lead to improved student learning.”   Halvar Jonson, Address to charter schools conference, Richmond, B.C. November 4, 1995. -Note      The Edmonton Suzuki Charter School was one of the first trailblazers.

Suzuki Elementary Charter School

The strains of an orchestra in early morning rehearsal greet visitors to Edmonton's Suzuki Elementary Charter School. All 76 students at this public school, kindergarten to grade 6, begin each day with 30 minutes of intensive instruction in strings, voice, and theory before segueing into the regular Alberta curriculum.

No, you don't have to be a child prodigy to attend, or even be able to carry a tune. But those whose choose this school find music a core component of instruction, a powerful vehicle to harness love of music to academic learning. Language arts, history, and even mathematics and physical education integrate music parallels wherever possible, so that learning fractions may well be tied to note values in the bars of music they study.

The school's director, Dr. Sheila Davidson, describes the program as ”attracting those with an interest in music, but the philosophy of demonstrating sequential mastery of skills in the Suzuki program transfers to all forms of learning and gives students an appreciation for this discipline in all fields.” The school began in 1987 as a private pre-school to teach music by the Suzuki method, with parents forming the Suzuki Society to run the school in a small facility leased from the Edmonton Separate School Board. They began adding one class a year as students progressed. By obtaining a charter last year, the school has expanded to include any child who wished to attend and removed the tuition barrier. The school is no longer only for musically elite families who can afford the $2,000 tuition. “With a charter, we can bring music to more people and show that every child can learn through this method,” says Davidson.

The school's charter provides the operating flexibility to create this unique learning environment with precisely the same per-pupil budget allotment as any other public school. Classes are small, with no more than 16 students. The Suzuki Society provides the music specialists, while regular classroom teachers handle the balance of the curriculum. Parental involvement is critical to the learning process and all parents are encouraged to serve on school committees. Parent volunteers provide much of the non-instructional support such as secretarial services. A school council comprised of teachers, parents, and administration make joint decisions on program and budget within the framework of the charter approved and granted by Alberta Education, setting teacher salaries into the overall agreed upon priorities for the school.

“Our teachers are passionately involved,” says Davidson. ”They are dedicated to the goals of the school.” Teacher selection is based not on seniority, but on the special strengths they can bring to the school. Despite lower advertised salaries than the salary grid negotiated by the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA), there is no shortage of applications for teaching positions at Suzuki Charter. Its teachers must be certified, and often hold other credentials as well, but there is no requirement that teachers belong to the ATA. Hundreds of applications arrive during the year, and the most recent position was filled from an applicant pool of over two dozen.

With a full range of students from gifted to challenged, Suzuki Elementary's achievement scores are above district average. The school's application form confirms that the school has “attracted students with identified special learning challenges. Parents of these children have enroled their children . . . because of the opportunity SES provides for individualized programming and planning, customized to the needs and inequities for each and every enrolee.” After one year as a charter school, Davidson is delighted with the school's venture into the main stream of public education. “We have opened our doors wider, and the happiness and pride of accomplishment the children display are the best evidence of success.”

Evaluating charter schools

By their very nature charter schools are innovative and highly unique, and must be subject to comprehensive evaluation as pilot projects and learning laboratories to assess their comparative success. The standards, measurement, and consequences, which are only broad goals in most reforms, become reality under charter law. Measurement of performance is vital to the renewal of the charter school license and continued funding is dependent upon achieving specified gains in student outcomes. This is the most critical data to demand now from the charter schools movement.

Governments are cognizant of the need for rigorous assessment of charter schools. Alberta charters are “responsible for designing a student assessment model that will assess accurately how well students are achieving learning expectations. In addition, charter students will be required to write Provincial Achievement Tests, Diploma Examinations and any other tests required by the Minister.” Charter renewal will “be determined largely by the results of regular school evaluation as outlined in the charter.”   Alberta Education, The Charter Schools Handbook, 1995, p. 12. -Note   Michigan requires all charters to administer three standardized tests at each grade level every year, including the mandated Michigan Education Assessment Program. In addition, many charter schools are participating in other innovative assessment programs with education faculties, assessment consortiums, and state and federal governments to examine learning outcomes, activities, administration, resource services, and levels of student and parent involvement. The U.S. Department of Education has signed a $2.1 million contract with a research consortium to undertake a four-year study of charter schools.

Given the youth of the charter schools movement, there has been insufficient time to demonstrate improved learning outcomes on a sustained basis. In 1992 Massey University conducted a small study of 70 charter schools in New Zealand which opted for completely independent management of their school budgets. It found that 87 percent of the principals agreed or agreed strongly that student learning outcomes had improved.   Minister of Education, Lockwood Smith, “The New Zealand Experience,” Address to Charter Schools Conference, Vancouver, November 3, 1995. -Note       A June 1996 assessment from the British Department for Education indicates “analysis of the GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] performance tables over three years suggests that GM schools (grant maintained charter equivalents) have made more progress than LEA [Local Education Authorities, the U.K. equivalent of Canadian school boards] schools in raising standards year on year.”      Anna Martin, Department for Education, London, July 5, 1996. -Note   It is important to note this is true of the comprehensive schools in both categories, schools which may not select their pupils for academic ability.

First reports on achievement data on Michigan and California charter schools are expected to be released later this year. “The hard data on a broad scale simply does not yet exist,” says Chester Finn, Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute, currently involved in a assessment of some 130 charter schools. “Most charter schools have not yet been operating two full years and that is insufficient time to produce meaningful achievement data. The impressionistic findings to date lead us to believe these schools are successful. But as soon as the first charter school is shut down for lack of academic achievement—and I hope it will be soon—I will propose that regular schools similarly be closed for non-performance.”

Nevertheless, some individual schools are pointing to impressive learning gains against internal previous benchmarks and district norms. Washington Charter School students achieved the highest writing proficiency scores in the district, and show dramatically rising reading test scores and tripling numbers on the honour roll. Boston's City Academy for drop-outs has achieved amazing successes in graduation rates.

Emerging trends

Despite limited hard data, a number of trends about charter performance are becoming clear.

Numerous At-risk Students Are Being Served

A spring 1995 national survey by the U.S. Education Commission of the States found that one half of operating charters target children not succeeding in the present system, like the Metro Deaf School opened in St. Paul to emphasize American Sign Language teaching which the school district refused to embrace. Two of Alberta's first handful of charters were for street youth. Twenty of Arizona's 51 charter schools target at-risk or special needs students, while another 14 charters are geared for school-to-work programs. Half of Minnesota's charter schools serve special populations including the hearing impaired, at-risk, children with reading disabilities and attention deficit disorders, and drop-outs. And Michigan charter schools report enroling approximately 50 percent minority students, while regular public schools enrol 23 percent.

Unique and Innovative Learning Environments are Being Created

Creative new models are being offered to better meet special student and family needs. Suzuki music programs, gifted education, native schools, year-round, schools in cyberspace, and many others open doors and encourage students who may not have found success in the neighbourhood school. New education theories are getting a test run. The rigorous assessment protocol for charters means the results of these innovations will be available so they can be studied and replicated or, if necessary, abandoned as unsuccessful before being adopted on a larger scale.

Stronger Community and Parent Relationships are Being Formed

A common feature of charter schools is a school support contract that parents must sign. At Washington Charter School in Palm Desert, California, principal Carole Horlock credits this mandatory `shared support agreement' with vastly improved school attendance, behaviour, homework completion, and test scores.   “Bringing Parents Back into the Process,” Palm Desert Sun, January 15, 1995. Follow-up interview: July 5, 1996. -Note    Parents are usually involved in the process of developing the school's charter, have an active governance role, and volunteer their time to assist school programs. Many charters have creative partnerships with community organizations and the private sector in the form of donated classroom space, technology, services, and supplies. Partners include such diverse agencies as the juvenile corrections system, native Indian tribes, municipal parks departments, corporations, boys and girls clubs, and the Teamsters' Union, which partially supports the Skills for Tomorrow Charter School, a vocational/technical school in Minneapolis.

More of the Existing Funds are Going to Instruction

Charter schools receive 95 to 100 percent of their per-pupil funding directly. By making budget decisions on site, they are saving money which can be redirected to instruction. Often cheaper contractors can be found to provide the same services that the district was receiving. Washington Charter School in California diverted money from the school maintenance contracts to lower class sizes and extend student support services. Vaughn Street, also in California, saved $1.2 million out of a $4.6 million budget which it used to lower class sizes, extend the school year, reverse a district pay cut for teachers, and build additional classrooms. Fenton Avenue School in Los Angeles re-directed an increase of almost $1 million to on-site expenditures when it converted to a charter in 1994. Services added included after-school enrichment and academic clinics, a staffed family centre, English-language and citizenship classes, expanded food services, 16 additional staff members, a classroom computer network, extra professional in-service training, and reduced class sizes.     Michael Barrett, Charter Schools: Moving Beyond Anecdotal Evidence, 1995. -Note

Impact on the system at large

Perhaps the greatest impact is that more and more alternative models are being approved as school districts respond to the charter challenge. The January 1994 Charter Schools Publication (vol. 1, no. 4) of the Colorado Department of Education observes secondary effects in reporting that “market demand is having an impact on school districts. Districts are finding it harder and harder to say `no' to change, in part due to charter schools and choice in general.” Ron Babiuk of Alberta Education notes evidence of this ripple effect even in Alberta since the passage of charter legislation one year ago. The presence of charters will cause all schools and districts to scrutinize performance to ensure they are serving the needs of their communities effectively.

Changing union positions

Traditional power-brokers in the public school system feel the most challenged by the emergence of charters. New Zealand teacher unions remain opposed to the chartering of that nation's schools. Thirteen thousand secondary teachers went on strike in March 1996 to display their dissatisfaction with the changes which they claim will lead to lower wages, erosion of collective bargaining, and greater inequities among schools.    Christchurch Press, February 29, 1996. -Note

      In Britain, both the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of School Masters and Union of Women Teachers have policies that press for the abolition of grant maintained schools. The California Teachers' Association, in conjunction with administration, spent millions to defeat a more comprehensive school choice initiative on the California ballot in 1993, and has worked to defeat many charter proposals in that state since the passage of charter legislation. The B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF) unanimously passed a policy at its 1995 AGM “that the BCTF oppose vouchers and charter schools and similar initiatives which privatize public schools and undermine the democratic principles upon which public schools are founded.”  B.C. Teachers' Federation, 1995 AGM Reports and Resolutions, p. 17. -Note       The federation has been a staunch and active opponent of charter schools through media campaigns and public forums and, along with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, refused to participate in Canada's first national conference to examine charter schooling.

Although their unions collectively have resisted charters, individually or in groups teachers have been eager participants in their development or in voting to convert existing schools such as Vaughn Street to charter status. In Minnesota's Old Country School, Boston's Fenway II, and California's Accelerated School, teachers actually own and operate the charters, hiring their own administration. Teachers may also be members of the charter non-profit, co-operative, or partnership.

As their numbers expand and the reality of charter schools takes hold, experienced teacher union leadership is now recognizing the potential of charters for enhanced professional autonomy and status for teachers. The National Education Association (NEA), representing 2.2 million U.S. teachers, has demonstrated a dramatic reversal in the thinking of teacher unions on this issue. Seeing that it could no longer resist the growing tide, the NEA recently changed tactics to adopt a proactive role regarding charter development. The NEA will seek to shape charter legislation to protect teacher contractual rights and benefits, and ensure charter schools employ certified teachers and are controlled by school boards. More significantly, the NEA has recognized the potential of charter schools and is now encouraging its members to participate through its recent Charter Schools Initiative. “The NEA has stepped forthrightly into the vanguard of the education reform movement in the United States,” asserted President Keith Geiger in announcing this step in February 1996.     Keith Geiger, “The Next Challenge for the New NEA,” Address to NEA Leadership Conference, Baltimore, Feb. 18, 1996. -Note

The five-year NEA Charter School Initiative will focus on reinventing American pubic education. Our goal is to help NEA members interested in creating new schools, and to document and assess the possibilities that charter schools present as mechanisms for systemic reform of public education. As a group, these schools will reflect the cutting edge of what is known about teaching, learning, curriculum, and the conditions which support quality schooling. (NEA Charter School Initiative Project, December 1995.)

In Canada, opposition to charter schools is still led by teachers' unions. The arguments expressed are borrowed from the earlier rhetoric of their American colleagues, relying on fears and misapprehensions which to a large degree have proven unfounded. These centre around equity, access, elitism, and the evils of competition. Bauni Mackay, president of the Alberta Teachers' Association, marshalled early opposition by declaring, “Education will not be improved by introducing competition through such things as charter schools. Competition means winners and losers. We can and should provide every child with the best. A strong public education system doesn't aim to create winners and losers. It aims for equity and not self-serving elitism.”      Bauni Mackay, Address to Conference Board of Canada, Vancouver, April 17, 1994. -Note

Some observers detect fears more closely related to loss of control. A September 1995 letter to the Globe and Mail jointly signed by the president of the Canadian School Boards Association and the Canadian Teachers' Federation put the argument this way: “Everyone has a stake in public schooling, not just parents of today's students. Charter schools weaken and reduce societal influence and responsibility for public education. Such schools are generally established by a select group of parents. . . . Public schools serve all society. Charter schools do not meet that test.”

A less publicly offered concern of teacher unions is that charter schools are an attack on the power and solidarity of their professional associations because teachers in these schools under Alberta legislation need not be, and in some cases cannot be, members of the Alberta Teachers' Association. A teacher federation boycott of Canada's first charter schools conference in November 1995 seems to indicate that Canadian teachers will need some time and further information to progress to the same level of acceptance that their American counterparts have for charter schools.

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.