Returning British Columbia to Prosperity

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Education Policy: The Future of British Columbia

Without a doubt, one of the most important services in which governments are involved is education. Education provides the foundation for people to develop the skills not only to work but indeed to engage in civil society. Education policy must, therefore, focus on maximising the quality of children's education and not become a captive of special interests.

This section, like previous sections, first presents the basic economics underlying the provision of education. It then presents information on the cost of education and relative performance of education in British Columbia. It summarily presents a number of international educational reforms to give a flavour of the reform possibilities available for education in British Columbia. The section concludes with a series of policy recommendations.

This section focuses almost exclusively on elementary and secondary education due to both space constraints and, more importantly, the fact that elementary and secondary education consumes nearly 70 percent of education resources in British Columbia. Further, as will be shown, government has a much more important role to play in elementary and secondary education than it does in post-secondary education.

Economics of Education

Most economists would agree that government has a role to play in the provision of education. Education, particularly elementary and secondary schooling, is an activity in which social benefits are likely to exceed private benefits. Certainly each of us benefits privately from being more educated. Higher levels of education normally increase an individual's skills and ability to earn a higher income.

A strong case can be made that society as a whole also benefits when individuals obtain a basic level of education. For instance, a more literate society may be a more law-abiding and civil society. Also, jurisdictions may be more competitive in attracting high-growth and high-value industries when society is more literate. Hence, because education confers benefits that accrue not only to the individual but also to society at large, society has an interest in ensuring that each individual receives at least a basic level of education.

Economists refer to such situations, where social benefits exist, as possessing "positive externalities." In the case of education, for example, society gains net positive benefits by having a more educated population. However, the presence of these net social benefits also means that individuals do not keep the full benefit of their education for themselves (i.e., some of the benefit goes to society at large). This means that a purely market-based system would tend to provide too little education, since the person paying for the education does not reap all of the rewards from that better education. Thus, it makes economic sense to use public resources to ensure an optimal amount of education, again particularly in primary and secondary education (Easton, 1988).

This is not likely to be the case for higher levels of education, as the returns to a university or college education are almost entirely captured by the individual who earns that education, in the form of higher future income. The rationale for government intervention in the market for higher education is much weaker than the parallel argument for primary and secondary education (Constantos and West, 1991).

Role of Government in Education

The conclusion that there is a role for government in education does not establish precisely what that role should be. In theory, there are many ways governments can participate in education (Easton, 1988). It can, for instance, simply finance education, giving money or vouchers to parents with children and allow parents to choose among private-sector suppliers. Or, it can finance and provide education through a system of schools owned and operated by the government. Or, it can allow some mix of private and public provision and financing.

State-controlled education dominates in most Canadian provinces, and the results are usually the same: government-run schools are generally expensive and do not specifically serve the interests of students and parents. There is widespread dissatisfaction across Canada with the public school system, and provincial governments across the country are under pressure to change the status quo. Before discussing the options for reform, it is critical that we understand where we are today.

The State of Education in BC

Education Costs

According to 2000 Provincial Budget figures, total expenditures on education in BC, for elementary, secondary, and post-secondary, will increase 4.0 percent, from $6.19 billion in 1999/00 to $6.44 billion in 2000/01. Total expenditures for education account for 28.9 percent of total consolidated provincial budget expenditures (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000a).

The provincial budget divides education expenditures into two separate categories: 1) education (elementary and secondary) and 2) advanced education, training, and technology. The budget for the Ministry of Education (elementary and secondary schooling) for 2000/01 totals $4.54 billion, representing a 4.4 percent increase from 1999/00. This figure also represents 20.3 percent of total consolidated provincial budget expenditures (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000a). The Second Quarterly Report indicated actual expenditures on primary and secondary education below budget forecasts (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000b).

The budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training, and Technology is expected to increase by 6.1 percent, from $1.81 billion in 1999/00 to $1.90 billion in 2000/01. Expenditures in this ministry account for 8.5 percent of total consolidated provincial budget expenditures. Similar to expenditures for elementary and secondary education, the actual expenditures for post-secondary education were below budget forecasts as of June 2000 (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000b).

Some of the budgeted increase is explained by the creation of 5,025 new post-secondary positions ($39 million), enhanced funding for post-secondary institutions including the partial cost of the tuition freeze and salary increases ($38 million), contributions to Royal Roads University ($3.8 million), and spending on equipment and library facilities ($9 million). In addition, the cost of the student assistance program is expected to increase based on a projected increase in demand of 5 percent ($14 million) and increased risk of cost-sharing programs with financial institutions and the extension of coverage to include private institutions ($5 million) (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000a).

As in previous sections, this one presents figures from Statistics Canada's Financial Management System (FMS) as it is generally regarded as a more precise method of assessing tax and expenditure information than simply using government budgets. The FMS is a standardized system of accounting that allows for easy inter-provincial comparisons.

According to the most recent FMS information, British Columbia will spend $5.89 billion in education in the fiscal year 1999/00. Of that total, $4.10 billion is for primary and secondary education, $1.55 billion is for post-secondary education, $118 million is allocated for special training, and $121 million is expended on other education programs. As Education Figure 1 shows, spending on elementary and secondary education envelops 69.6 percent of total education spending, while post-secondary expenditures account for an additional 26.3 percent. In other words, 95.9 percent of the education expenditures are allocated to elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education (Statistics Canada, 2000a).

According to FMS data, total real (inflation-adjusted) education expenditures in British Columbia have increased 18.6 percent between 1991/92 and 1999/00 (Education Figure 2). Real spending on elementary and secondary education has increased 16.8 percent over the same period while expenditures on post-secondary education have increased 20.8 percent. Although spending on special training amounts to the smallest budgeted area, it experienced the largest real increase over the period, 288.1 percent, increasing from a mere $30.4 million to $118.0 million. Education spending categorized as "other" decreased in real terms between 1991/92 and 1999/000 by 16.6 percent (Statistics Canada, 2000a).

Although real per pupil expenditures have decreased since peaking in 1996/97, they are still 2.7 percent higher than in 1991/92, as depicted in Education Figure 3 (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000b; Statistics Canada, 2000a; with calculations by the author). Put differently, per pupil expenditures in 1999/00 amounted to $6,684, $175 greater than in 1991/92 measured in constant 1999/00 dollars.

Some of the aggregate expenditure increases are a result of simply having more students in British Columbia. As Education Figure 4 depicts, the number of elementary students increased 11.1 percent between 1991/92 and 1999/00 while the number of secondary students increased 27.2 percent during the same period.

Not surprisingly, the number of schools also increased. Education Figure 5 illustrates the increase in the number of elementary, secondary, and other schools in British Columbia between 1991/92 and 1999/00. The number of elementary schools increased 3.8 percent, the number of secondary schools increased 12.8 percent, and the number of "other" schools increased 56.8 percent for a total increase in the number of schools of 10.4 percent between 1991/92 and 1999/00 (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000b). In addition, approximately 500 new teachers were hired with requisite capital spending to create 28,886 new elementary and secondary student spaces (BC Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations, 2000b).

Structure of
Spending

In a 1999 report, Statistics Canada compared provincial spending on educators, non-educators, and others in order to assess inter-provincial differences, among other things. As Education Figure 6 reveals, British Columbia tied Quebec for the second lowest percentage of education expenditures allocated to educators, at 63 percent. Only Manitoba allotted a lower percentage of its education expenditures (57 percent) to educators. Alternatively, British Columbia allocated the highest percentage of any province, 19 percent of education expenditures, to non-educator expenses (Statistics Canada, 1999).

Education Figure 7 shows total public school expenditures as a percent of per capita GDP for British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario between 1992/93 and 1998/99. This measure indicates the burden placed on individuals in each of the provinces in terms of public expenditures on education. Both Alberta and Ontario have experienced a decline in the percent of per capita GDP allotted for public education expenditures. Of the three provinces, only British Columbia has experienced an increasing percent of per capita GDP being allocated for education spending (BC Ministry of Education, 2000a).

Every province except Saskatchewan and Newfoundland experienced an increase in the ratio of students to educators between 1992/93 and 1998/99 (BC Ministry of Education, 2000a), as illustrated in Education Figure 8. British Columbia's increase in this ratio was not nearly as pronounced as that in Alberta and Ontario.

Test Score Performance

One of the important questions is whether or not British Columbia's students are excelling, or at least improving, in educational performance. Statistics Canada has compiled a report for the Council of Ministers of Education which presents educational testing results, both inter-provincially and internationally. Education Tables 1 and 2 contain the summary results for both the School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) and Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).

School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP)

The School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) measures the scholastic achievements of a sample of 13- and 16-year-old students across Canada in mathematics, reading, writing, and science. The results are reported according to achievement levels: level 1 being the lowest and level 5 being the highest. Education Table 1 presents the results for 13-year-olds for all subjects tested at Level 2 and 3.

Education Table 1 indicates whether students in each province scored at, below, or above the national average. As the table indicates, students in British Columbia generally performed at the national average. For instance, in all tests for 13-year-olds at Level 2, students in British Columbia scored at the national average in every subject test except Mathematics Problems (1997), in which they were below the national average.

The results were worse for Level 3 for 13-year-olds. Students in British Columbia tested below the national average in two subject areas: Mathematics Content (1997) and Mathematics Problems (1997). In all other test areas, students in British Columbia scored at the national average.

Only two provinces stand out in terms of the SAIP testing: Alberta and Quebec. Alberta students tested above the national average in 4 test areas for 13-year-olds at Level 2 and in 2 test areas for 13-year-olds at Level 3. Similarly, Quebec French-only students tested above the national average in 3 test areas for both 13-year-olds at Level 2 and Level 3.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

The TIMSS program focuses exclusively on mathematics and science due to the larger than normal returns to those educational areas. The results presented are for countries (and provinces) that met sampling requirements for the testing program. In each area, tests were conducted at the grade 4 and 8 level as well as the final year of secondary school (results not available). Education Table 2 presents the results for Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick as well as various countries participating in TIMSS.

The first and most obvious observation is the dominance of Asian countries. Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Hong Kong dominate the rankings for all four test areas. Canada consistently scored above the international mean, albeit by only small margins. The range of scores for Canada were 1 percentage point above the international mean for grade 4 mathematics and 5 percentage points above the international mean for grade 4 science.

Like Canada, British Columbia consistently scored above the international mean. However, like Canada, the margins were generally small. For instance, British Columbia scored at the international mean for grade 4 mathematics and 8 percentage points above the international mean for grade 8 mathematics (Education Table 2).

Unfortunately, both Canada as a whole and British Columbia in particular trailed their Asian counterparts by wide margins. For instance, the achievement gap between Korea, which ranked in the top three countries for all four tests, and British Columbia ranged between 17 percentage points for grade 4 mathematics and 4 percentage points for grade 8 science. There is clearly room for improvement for students in British Columbia and indeed for Canadian students in general as measured by the TIMSS.

The 1999 results of TIMSS are now available, but unfortunately, the results have not yet been analyzed sufficiently to indicate intra-Canadian differences. That is, the results only indicate national performance as opposed to indicating sub-national performance, so it is unclear whether British Columbia has improved its performance. Nonetheless, Canada did perform above the international average for both mathematics and science (US Department of Education, 2000).

Fraser Institute's Report
Card Series

One of the Ministry of Education's key objectives is to ensure that all students in the province have access to equally high-quality education (Ministry of Education, 2001.) However, prior to 1998 there was no systematic way to compare the results of different schools within the province. Dr. Stephen Easton and Peter Cowley, both of The Fraser Institute, developed an objective process through which the performance of secondary schools in provinces could be readily compared. Now, through The Fraser Institute's series of provincial secondary school report cards, parents, educators, students, and taxpayers in several provinces are able to assess secondary school performance objectively.

Each year, the results on each of the indicators of school performance measured in the report cards have varied widely among schools. Many of those involved in education suggest that school performance is largely the result of the individual and family characteristics of the school's students. But, even when parental income, parental level of education, and a variety of other of socio-economic and demographic variables are taken into account, the report card shows that some schools do better than others. Apparently, some schools are able to help students succeed regardless of their background, while others are not.

The Ministry of Education has recently instituted the Foundation Skills Assessment program. Under this testing initiative, all of the province's students in grades 4, 7, and 10 will be tested annually in reading, writing, and mathematics. These test results indicate that similar disparities in school effectiveness can also be found at the elementary school level.

Computer Access

Interestingly, the Statistics Canada report referred to previously also investigated inter-provincial differences in access to computers, measured by both the ratio of students to computers and the percentage of schools connected to the Internet. As Education Figure 9 illustrates, British Columbia faired well relative to the other provinces in the student-to-computer ratio for elementary schools. British Columbia's ratio of 8 students per computer ranked second, along with Manitoba, behind Alberta (with a ratio of 7 students per computer) for elementary schools (Statistics Canada, 1999). Nova Scotia recorded the worst ratio at 15 students per computer.

British Columbia's performance for lower secondary and upper secondary schools was not nearly as positive. As Education Figure 9 reveals, British Columbia ranks in the middle of the provinces with a ratio of 8 students per computer for lower secondary schools. Again, Alberta led all provinces with a ratio of 6 students per computer while Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland ranked last with 11 students per computer (Statistics Canada, 1999).

British Columbia ranks next to last for the ratio of students to computers for upper secondary schools with a ratio of 8. Only Quebec and Nova Scotia maintain a worse ratio of 9 students per computer. Manitoba led the nation with a ratio of 5, followed closely by Ontario with 6 students per computer (Statistics Canada, 1999).

British Columbia performs considerably worse when the percentage of students in elementary and secondary schools connected to the Internet is measured (Education Figure 10). British Columbia fairs the worst of any province for elementary schools and ranks second worst for access for lower secondary schools. The province ranks considerably better for access to the Internet for upper secondary schools, although it still only achieves a middle ranking (Statistics Canada, 1999).

Monopoly: Cause of Difficulty

The difficulties facing many of British Columbia's public schools are grounded in its monopoly institutional structure (Gardner, 1996; Raham, 1996). The monopoly enjoyed by the public school system makes it unresponsive to change. When educational policy is standardized by public sector officials, a one-size-fits-all approach to schooling tends to emerge.

There is, however, no single approach to education that is appropriate for all students in all regions or jurisdictions, given the population's diverse talents and endowments. The result, unfortunately, is that few students will receive the type of schooling they need. A one-size-fits-all approach to schooling stifles the experimentation and diversity that would make schooling more responsive to the needs of individual students.

Furthermore, when government has a monopoly to provide education, the school system ceases to be accountable to its customers—the parents and students. In the absence of choice and competition, education policy can be set without the approval of parents. Whole programs and pedagogies can appear or disappear at the whim of administrators without the consent of parents.

It seems relatively clear that taxpayers and parents are not receiving full value for the education they are supporting. British Columbia continues to spend more money than both its international and provincial counterparts in a vain attempt to spend its way out of a problem founded in the organization of its public education spending. British Columbia has a number of educational problems facing it: average performance in testing, wide inter-provincial differences in performance, resources focused on administration rather than on the classroom, a lack of technological access, etc., none of which are based on a lack of spending. British Columbia must fundamentally assess where and how it allocates its current educational resources.

International Reform Experience: A Few of the Possibilities

[Note: This section is based entirely upon the work completed by Claudia Hepburn, Education Analyst at The Fraser Institute in her 1999 study, The Case for School Choice: Models from the United States, New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden. The study is available on the Internet at www.fraserinstitute.ca/ publications/critical_issues/1999/school_ choice/.]

Canada, and in particular British Columbia, could clearly be doing better. Education reform should not occur in a vacuum as if other nations have not struggled with the same questions that currently face reformers in British Columbia. This section provides a brief overview of some of the possibilities available for elementary and secondary education reform based on initiatives undertaken in the United States, New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden. This section simply summarizes reforms undertaken internationally and is not meant to present a definitive description or assessment of the reform initiatives. For such information, readers should refer to the recommended readings at the end of this section.

United States: A Laboratory for Experimentation and Innovation

Perhaps due to its unique history, its culture, or possibly simply due to its size, the United States has been the centre of education experimentation and innovation for the better part of the last decade. In fact, all four major types of education innovation are present in the United States.

US Charter Schools

Charter schools offer school choice within the existing public system. Charter schools operate independently, both financially and legally from the local school board. They are not bound by union contracts or other school board policies. Further, pupil funding is forwarded directly to the charter school, avoiding the costs associated with a school board. Charter schools are precluded from charging tuition because they are publicly funded. Their charters are also subject to periodic renewal based on performance. Like independent schools, charter schools require active parental support. This permits a great deal more flexibility in the delivery of education by charter schools.

In late 1999, there were 37 states with charter legislation, several more considering legislation, and 27 states with operating charter schools (Center for Education Reform, 1999). Arizona led the US with more than 4 percent of students in charter schools. Other states with strong charter laws include California, Michigan, Colorado, and Massachusetts. A few states, however, have such weak legislation that no charter schools have been established at all.

Currently less than 1 percent of all US students attend charter schools (Hepburn, 1999b). Nonetheless, the number of charter schools had grown to 1,205 by 1999, serving more than 300,000 students (Education Figure 11). This represents a more than 200 percent increase in the number of schools and more than a 300 percent increase in the number of students educated in charter schools between 1993/94 and 1998/99 (US Department of Education, 1998; Center for Education Reform, 1999).

A number of the fears raised by opponents of the charter movement have been proved unfounded. For instance, a study by the US Department of Education in 1997 investigated the demographic characteristics of charter schools and concluded that:

no evidence to support the fear that charter schools as a group disproportionately serve white and economically advantaged students... Charter schools are similar to their districts on student racial/ethnic and income level characteristics, but about a third are more likely to serve students of color and low-income students. (US Department of Education, 1998, pp. 7-8)

Charter schools were also found to serve disabled and impeded children. Further, the Hudson Institute's study found that charter schools attract low-income children, children with learning and behavioral disabilities, and children at risk (Finn et al., 1996).

Parental satisfaction and support for charter schools is evidenced by waiting-lists at practically all charter schools. Further, the intention of an overwhelming majority of parents to keep their children in charter schools similarly documents parental contentment (Hepburn, 1999).

The most significant finding was that students in charter schools achieve greater academic results than do their peers in public schools. According to research by the Center for School Change, charter school students achieve markedly better academic performance, achieving gains of 1.3 to 2 years in a variety of subjects (Cheung, Murphy, and Nathan, 1998).

Charter schools have also been embraced both by teachers and, surprisingly, by teacher unions. Surveys conducted by the Hudson Institute concluded that teachers preferred the more "familial school atmosphere, sensible management decisions, dedicated colleagues, and enhanced personal and institutional accountability" present in charter schools (Finn et al., 1996, p. 4).

Also, there is growing evidence that teachers in charter schools are not subjected to lower pay across the board. For instance, a study by the Goldwater Institute found that Arizona's charter schools "set their salary schedules 5 percent higher than traditional public schools, with merit pay and pay for special skills raising the overall average to 6 percent higher" (Solomon and Gifford, 1999).

American charter schools have been appropriately called "America's educational research and development centers" (Manno et al., 1998, p. 2). The Fraser Institute's Claudia Hepburn stated that "it would be impossible to describe adequately the myriad educational innovations taking place between their walls. Many create new learning environments by organizing school time, spaces, and structures differently, in ways that meet their educational goals better than the usual timetable of 40-minute lessons, six-hour days, and nine-month years" (Hepburn, 1999b).

Public Vouchers in the US

Public vouchers move beyond reforming education within the public system. Public voucher programs essentially involve giving parents the financial resources to purchase education. In other words, public vouchers put public funds in the hands of parents in order to allow them to choose alternative schools for their children. They represent a watershed in education reform. The first of two major public voucher programs, Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program is summarily presented below.⁹

Milwaukee

Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) is the oldest and longest-studied public voucher program in the US. It began in 1990 in response to high drop-out rates, poor test scores, and significant disparity in education opportunity between low-income and middle-income families.

The program initially allowed 1 percent (increased to 15 percent in 1995) of Milwaukee Public School (MPS) students from low-income families to attend independent, non-sectarian schools. Students applied to the participating independent schools and, once their family incomes were verified, were selected randomly by the schools for the places available. This voucher program cost taxpayers 41 percent of the cost of sending students to a Milwaukee public school (Greene, Peterson and Du, 1997, p. 13).

In 1995, the program was expanded to include religious schools, which was critical since religious schools accounted for roughly 90 percent of Milwaukee's independent schools (Greene, Peterson and Du, 1997).

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have concluded that "[i]n all five years, parental satisfaction with choice schools increased significantly over satisfaction with prior public schools" (Witte, Sterr and Thorn, 1995). Findings by researchers at Harvard and Princeton showed "statistically significant" efficiency gains (Greene, Peterson and Du, 1997, p. 2). Evaluation by Harvard researchers concluded that academic improvements began in the first year of attending a choice school and increased the longer they were enroled (Greene, Peterson, and Du, 1997, p. 17). Both the Harvard and Princeton studies recommended increasing and expanding the choice programs.

Private Vouchers in the US

Private vouchers, like their public counterparts, are meant to provide parents with the resources to make decisions regarding their children's education. The difference is that private vouchers are funded by non-governmental organizations like foundations, charities, and business.

Three landmark voucher programs illustrate the growth in scope and potency of the private voucher movement over the past three years.

Giffen Memorial Elementary School

In the early 1990s, Virginia Gilder sponsored a voucher program for students at several poorly performing municipal schools in upper New York State. Each summer, a few students at each of the schools won a voucher and transferred to an independent school. Meanwhile, the government schools' dropout rates remained unacceptably high, their literacy and numeracy scores remained unacceptably low, and the school board made no apparent attempt to improve them.

At the Giffen School, only half of the grade 3 students could read at the minimum state standard and their results deteriorated the longer they attended. Gilder offered every child at Giffen a scholarship of up to US$2,000 per year, or 90 percent of the cost of an independent school, for three to six years. Thirty-four percent of the low-income parents accepted her offer, even when asked to pay a share of the tuition. For the first time the school board was forced to account for and defend its use of public funds.

Children's Scholarship Fund

The Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) has taken the private voucher movement to a new level of size and significance. Less than nine months after its establishment, the US$100 million fund had raised an additional US$100 million in matching grants and US$55 million in additional donations. CSF distributed 40,000 vouchers with a total value of US$170 million for the 1999/2000 school year: 35,000 of these vouchers were distributed through local organizations established in 43 cities and three states while another 5,000 were available to low-income children who applied from any other part of the country. CSF has made private vouchers a movement of national significance.

Long-standing research comparing government schools and independent schools indicates that the educational value added by independent schools is greater than that added by government schools (Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore, 1982; Powell, Farrar, and Cohen, 1985; Chubb and Moe, 1990). New research based on the academic achievements of voucher recipients in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and New York confirms these results (Greene, Howell, and Peterson, 1997a, 1997b; Greene, Peterson, and Du, 1997; Peterson, Myers, Haimson, and Howell, 1997; Peterson, Myers, and Howell, 1998). Voucher programs facilitate the ability of parents to make school choice decisions.

Education Tax Incentives

Tax credits for education developed from the premise parents should have some power to direct their school taxes to their preferred system of education. Tax incentives can be designed either to reduce the barrier to independent schooling for middle-income and lower-income students or to provide the families at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder with the option of independent schooling for their children.

Growing numbers of Americans are advocating tax credits as an alternative to public vouchers. In Minnesota, Iowa, and Louisiana, tax incentives have been enacted to reduce the financial barrier to independent school enrolment, making it possible for a greater proportion of the population to afford independent schooling for their children (Blum Center for Parental Freedom in Education, 1998).

New Zealand's Charter Schools

To improve "the effectiveness and efficiency of resource use in education" (NZMoE, 1994, p. 40), the Government of New Zealand shifted authority from the central Department of Education to individual schools. A board of trustees for each school replaced the existing district school boards so that "the running of the institutions [became] a partnership between the [education] professionals and the particular community" (NZDoE, 1988, p. 1). Elected parents and other community members control the schools' boards, which unite the vision and interests of each community with the educational objectives of the state.

At the same time, the government removed school zoning. This measure was designed to improve equity in enrolment, to give families a choice of educational alternatives, to encourage healthy competition among schools for students, and to promote better educational practices. De-zoning has provided a majority of families with a choice of schools: 85 percent of parents surveyed said their child was attending their first choice of school (Wylie, 1997, p. 158).

These statistics reveal not only high levels of parental satisfaction but also high levels of parental involvement in their children's education. A large majority of parents are now actively involved in deciding the course of their children's schooling. Two-thirds of New Zealand parents whose children are in school had already decided which school they would like their child to attend next and the majority (63 percent) of those parents could envisage no obstacle to prevent their child from going on to that school (Wylie, 1997, p. 158). Parental mindfulness of their children's education, as common sense suggests and research has proven, is highly correlated with successful schools (Chubb and Moe, 1990, pp. 148-49).

In the original plan for the restructuring, schools were to receive direct funding for all their expenses on a per-pupil basis, with extra allocations for schools serving special-needs students and low-income communities. In 1990, 69 schools voted to take part in a three-year direct funding initiative in which the schools themselves would receive the entirety of the per pupil funding. Three years later, direct funding had proven successful at all 69 schools; every one chose to continue it at the end of the trial period. By 1997, 10 percent of schools had opted for direct funding (Wylie, 1997, p. 137) and by the end of 1998 more than 23 percent of schools had adopted it (Hepburn, 1999b).

Another proposed reform, permitting new schools to open and allowing failing, unpopular schools to close, was never implemented because of union opposition. No new schools may be opened if there is space for students in existing schools. This means that students and teachers are sometimes stuck in failing schools because the popular schools are filled to capacity. The American charter experience suggests that by allowing schools to open and close, the government could have increased the competitiveness and accountability of the educational marketplace. It would have enabled more families to escape bad schools and fostered new charter schools of higher quality.

School Assessment: Educational Review Office

New Zealand, as part of its education reform package, established the Educational Review Office (ERO) to inspect schools and report their standards. The ERO's purpose is to keep schools accountable to an independent public body, to help improve weak schools, and to keep parents and the general public informed about the performance of their education system.

Karen Dobric, studying the effects of competition, site-based management, and accountability on New Zealand secondary schools, concludes that "retention rates are increasing, more and more non-traditional possibilities are opening up in senior secondary areas, students' needs are increasingly being met, and retention rates are increasing further" (Dobric, 1997, p. 27). Indeed, a 7-year study by the New Zealand Council on Educational Research found that principals and teachers believed that the impact of the educational reforms on children's learning, teaching content, and teaching style was overwhelmingly positive (Wylie, 1997, pp. 161-63).

Denmark

Independent education has a long tradition in Denmark. The Danish educational system developed from the belief that parental authority over education should be paramount and that a truly democratic system of government-run education would be impossible without a range of independent, publicly funded, alternatives

Danish Voucher System

Independent schools in Denmark have provided educational choice for families throughout the country since the first half of the nineteenth century and today they educate about 13 percent of elementary and lower-secondary school students. School choice in Denmark is achieved through a system of public vouchers for independent schooling. Approximately 75 percent of municipal spending on schools follows students who enrol in independent schools. The Ministry of Education pays a sum per pupil to each independent school. The exact amount varies depending upon the size of the school, the age of the students, and the age of the teachers.

The government requires independent schools to charge tuition to all parents except those for whom it would cause undue financial hardship. If parents choose an independent school over a municipal school, they must pay tuition of at least DKr3,500 (roughly Cdn$720) per year. The average compulsory school charges DKr7,439 (Cdn$1,518) per annum (Olesen, 1998), while the average secondary school charges DKr8,500 (Cdn$1,735) (Hansen, 1998). The competitive nature of the education market prevents tuition fees from escalating.

Danish municipal schools imitate successful practices pioneered in the independent sector because they risk losing pupils and popular support if they do not. Research conducted by the OECD has found that "Municipal schools are starting to replicate the model of parental involvement developed in [independent] schools" (OECD, 1994, p. 147). The number of parents choosing independent schools grew by 50 percent in the course of a few years during the 1980s. The municipal schools responded when it became clear that they were losing students.

Sweden: The Swedish Voucher System

Dissatisfaction with educational policy grew for a generation in Sweden until fundamental organizational reforms were implemented virtually overnight in 1991. That year, a new government came into power promising to end central planning in education and to replace it with decentralization and school choice (Hepburn, 1999b).

The 1991 legislation devolved power from the central government to parents, municipalities, and independent schools. Education objectives were nationally legislated but their implementation became, for the first time, the role of the municipalities. The reforms also gave parents educational choice. For the first time, parents were free to send their children to any government school within their municipality or to an independent school, with public funding following the child to the school chosen. Independent schools approved by the National Agency for Education would receive 85 percent of the cost of educating a student in the municipal school system.

As early as 1993, a poll conducted by the National Agency of Education found that "85 percent of Swedes value their new school choice rights" and "59 percent of Swedish parents think that teachers work harder when there is school choice" (Center for Governmental Research, 1997, p. 2). The changes were felt both by the children attending new independent schools and by those who remained in the government-run system, which was starting to respond to parental concerns. As one Swedish professor of education concluded, "one cannot deny that the reform has made municipal schools more efficient" (Miron, 1996, p. 79).

The supply of these schools is growing by from .5 to 1 percent per year, educating approximately 3,500 more students every year at a time when the school-aged population in Sweden is declining. In 1998 alone, the number of students in independent schools increased by 15 percent, despite the fact that the total number of school-aged students in Sweden declined by 11 percent (Hepburn, 1999b). Independent schools are expected to be educating 10 to 15 percent of students within a decade (Hepburn, 1999b).

International Reform Conclusion

There are myriad reforms that could be imported to British Columbia in order to facilitate and motivate improvement in the delivery of education. Whether it is expanding the limited public voucher system British Columbia already maintains, introducing charter schools, or encouraging the development of private educational vouchers, the underlying premise of any educational reform should be greater parental choice, flexibility, and accountability, if success in education delivery is the ultimate goal.

Policy Recommendations

Intermediate Policy Recommendations

(1) Eliminate funding discrimination for Independent schools.

The Province of British Columbia currently only finances two of the four types of independent schools, and then only at a percentage of the base. For instance, Group 1 schools receive 50 percent of the adjusted per-student operating cost but must comply with ministerial guidelines including curriculum, employment of certified teachers, and compliance with municipal and regional district codes. The discriminatory funding structure for independent schools in British Columbia not only affects the nearly 60,000 students enroled in independent schools but also impedes the development and access to independent schools for potential students. The funding structure should immediately be adjusted to eliminate provincial discrimination. This, above all other recommendations in this section, would facilitate school choice and competition within the school system.

(2) Introduce flexible regulations for existing and new Independent schools.

Independent schools not only face stiff financial penalties in the form of discriminatory funding by the province but are also encumbered by a number of regulations, including curriculum and teacher certification, assuming they choose to receive government funding. The province should immediately overhaul regulations governing Independent schools, both existing and new, to permit greater flexibility and experimentation within the education system.

(3) Eliminate catchment areas.

Allowing parents to transfer their students within the current public system would introduce an important element of competition within the public system and at least partially re-organize education incentives back towards the delivery of education for students.

(4) Enact strong charter school legislation.

British Columbia should move quickly to introduce strong and supportive charter school legislation based on international models that have successfully encouraged and facilitated the creation and maintenance of charter schools. As a comprehensive survey of the US charter school movement completed by the Hudson Institute noted, US states whose legislation provides charter schools with autonomy and support have a vibrant and expanding charter movement while those with weak legislation often fail to see any charter school development.

(5)Focus the Ministry of Education on communications.

With greater parental choice will come a greater need for the Ministry to provide information to parents. The ministry will have to develop systems for both collecting information about all education providers and disseminating this information to parents, citizens and the media.

(6) Continued focus on delivering resources to the classroom.

British Columbia needs to continue to be vigilant about rationalizing administrative functions and ensuring that maximum resources flow through to the classroom. Although advances have been made in recent years, more needs to be done to streamline administrative functions, such as outsourcing and contracting, in order to deliver more resources to educators and ultimately to students.

(7) Introduce greater flexibility into the teaching profession by permitting non-certified teachers to use their expertise to teach classes on a part-time or instructional basis.

Precluding experts from contributing to the educational process serves no one; it only protects teacher positions. The goal of the education system must be to maximize educational results rather than protect those who produce education. Greater flexibility to use experts on a part-time and specialized basis should immediately be introduced legislatively.

(8)Re-negotiate collective agreements to focus on market-based compensation.

Education remuneration, particularly for non-educators, should be market-tested, given British Columbia's already skewed focus on non-educator expenditures (see Education Figure 6). That is, non-educator compensation should be compared to similar positions in the general labour market in order to calculate compensation levels.

(9)Fostering a private voucher system to augment the public system.

British Columbia should encourage charities, foundations, business organizations, and those interested in education to develop private initiatives such as private vouchers. Specifically, a private voucher system could be established to provide low- and middle-income families with additional educational resources to cover tuition not covered by the current public voucher and incidental expenses such as uniforms and textbooks.

Long-Term Policy Recommendation

(1) Implement a broad, public voucher system for education.

The ultimate reform of education rests in the creation of a broad-based public voucher system for the province in which parents, rather than schools, would receive education resources. The province would already be close to a public voucher system assuming the end of discriminatory funding for Independent schools. The creation of a province-wide public voucher system would simply require institutional changes for the providers of education, namely the schools, and the requisite teachers, administrators, and other employees. Such a system has proved tremendously successful in a number of countries including some already discussed.

Fraser Institute Policy Contacts:

Claudia Hepburn, Education Policy Analyst
Phone: (416) 967-2923
Email: claudiah@fraserinstitute.ca

Peter Cowley, Director of School Performance Studies
Phone: (604) 714-4556
Email: peterc@fraserinstitute.ca

Recommended Readings

[Note: For complete publication data, please see the list of references.]

Center for Education Reform (1997). School Reform in the United States: State-by-State Summary.

Aaron Dare (1999). "Charter Schools in New York: A New Era." Civic Bulletin 23 (December).

Chester Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, and Louann Bierlein (1996). Charter Schools in Action: What Have We Learned?

Lisa Graham Keegan (1999). "Transforming American Education." Civic Bulletin 19 (July).

Carrie Lips (2000). Edupreneurs: A Survey of For-Profit Education.

Gary Miron (1996). Free Choice and Vouchers Transform Schools.

Darcy Ann Olsen and Matthew J. Brouillette (2000). Reclaiming Our Schools: Increasing Parental Control of Education through the Universal Education Credit.

Helen Raham (1996). Revitalizing Public Education in Canada: The Potential of Choice and Charter Schools.

Claudia Hepburn (1999). The Case For School Choice: Models from the United States, New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden. Critical Issues Bulletin. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

Nina Shokraii Rees (2000). Education and Revolutionary Improvements.

Paul G. Vallas (1999). " Saving Public Schools." Civic Bulletin 16 (March).

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

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: