Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is
acknowledged]
In some places, ‘choice in education’ is enshrined in legislation. The province of Alberta makes provision for charter schools, for example. British Columbia’s School Act makes provision to enrol students living outside the boundaries of their local school and for students who live outside of the boundaries of a school district.
Equity in education is less well established, dating most visibly to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that over-turned the doctrine that separate facilities were permissible if they were equal. The Court’s decision said that separate educational facilities for white and African American students were inherently unequal.
Maliciously inclined school boards sought ways to avoid integrating schools and programs. Even well-intentioned school boards have tried to accommodate what the Court recognized are essentially incompatible values. The student composition of programs and schools of choice tends to favour students from advantaged backgrounds. They immediately benefit from what is offered. The advantages they possess as off-spring of advantaged families are perpetuated when their participation in such programs or schools is recognized by selective post-secondary institutions.
Canada has its own history of [in]equity. My colleague, Jason Ellis addresses equity in the history of education policy course he teaches at UBC. In his examination of equity in Canadian education his divides the postwar period into two. In the first, “getting everyone to the schoolhouse door,” (roughly 1950-1970) he addresses the extension of public education to unserved or under-served groups. Among the unserved Ellis includes Indigenous children in the separate federal “Indian” day and residential schools and children with IQs lower than 50 who were legally excluded from schools. Ellis includes rural children, Black children in segregated schools in Ontario and Nova Scotia, children in institutions, and others among the under-served.
In the second period (roughly 1970 to the present) that he describes as “making the schoolhouse welcoming to all,” Ellis addresses broadening curricula to make it more respectful of, and welcoming, of difference. Notable among the changes are tolerating additional instructional languages (a form of multiculturalism), gender-sensitive curricula, the ending of Christian opening exercises and Christian religious instruction, etc.
Contemporary post-secondary education remains economically layered. High school students from advantaged families are over-represented among the student bodies of selective institutions and high school students from less advantaged backgrounds are over-represented in institutions that are not selective. The effect is to reproduce the advantages of advantaged students.
Many school boards try to moderate the differential impact that schools and programs of choice confer by using mechanisms such as random selection among applicants. Such mechanisms are merely hopeful gestures because advantaged families are over-represented in the pool of applicants from which names are drawn. Advantaged families can afford the transportation to and from the schools/programs and any additional fees that enrollment may require. Less advantaged families disproportionately rely on older siblings to ensure younger ones get to and from school safely.
Inequities resulting from choice lead school boards to eliminate a program or school of choice or to change the selection criteria. When that happens, they are subjected to pressure from families with disproportionate political and economic capital. Talk about rocks and hard places.
It would be easy to demonize the advantaged parents for wanting to maximize the benefits that participation in schools and programs of choice confer. I don’t think that gets anyone anywhere. What parent does not want what they perceive to be the ‘best’ for their children?
Persuading parents to see beyond the horizon of their children’s interest for the common good would be challenging. It would likely require broader social recognition of the inherent conflict between choice and equity. I think it is worth striving for such recognition. The significant fraying of social cohesion is one consequence of favoring choice over equity. I worry that we are approaching the point where the social fabric will shred completely.
I am encouraged when school boards recognize that choice and equity are incompatible values and make efforts to lessen the impact of choice and increase equity. But social equity will require changes beyond those under the control of school boards.
In the meantime, I think there is something that school systems might implement that will mitigate the effects of choice and increase equity. But it will be challenging. I suggest that schooling be divided into two parts through the end of grade 10. All students should be immersed in language, mathematics, science, and social studies for seventy per cent of the school week. The remaining 30 per cent should be allocated for elective studies in areas such as art, music, athletics, and second-language studies.
I’d label this universal education program through grade 10 the foundation program. We should make every effort to ensure that students have successfully completed the foundation program successfully.
By the time they are eligible for grade 11, students should possess the foundation for choosing a program of specialized study in areas such as language and literature; trades and technologies; social and behavioural science; mathematics and science; fine and performing arts; and business. There should be no prerequisites for enrolling in a program of specialized study except successful completion of the foundation studies program through grade ten. Specialized study programs might include more than two years of study, as is the case with Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) in Quebec. Students who successfully complete a specialized study program would be awarded a certificate.
If implemented well, my proposal would accomplish two important objectives. One is ensuring that all students meet the same standards to the completion of grade ten. The other, is that it provides a common social and educational experience that might contribute to greater social cohesion.
My proposal does not completely
address the incompatibility of choice and equity. But I think it would make a
modest contribution to equity and social cohesion.