Are we still failing our kids?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 After completing my term as British Columbia’s Deputy Minister of Education in 2001, I reflected upon what at that time was 30 years of experience in Canadian education. Those reflections were published in Failing Our Kids: How we are ruining our public schools, a lament about the state of education at the time. Twenty years later, I contend that we have made scant progress because we hold misconceptions about the purpose/mission of public schools.  

Although Canada’s publicly funded elementary and secondary schools are among the best in the world, there are many students under-served and unserved by those schools. These students are ones who society has marginalized, including Indigenous and Black students, students with special needs, and students who are refugees or who come from families that sought refuge in Canada.  

There have been improvements for such students, but those improvements have been far from impressive. The small improvements and the rate of change has persuaded me that there are systemic factors that impede the progress of students in these categories, including the racism of low expectations and resistance to assuming responsibility for the success of all students.  

Confusion about the purpose of education is at the heart of the problem. Schooling is perceived as a private, individual benefit rather than a public good. Consider these two mission/purpose statements from school boards:

Each student, in keeping with their individual abilities and gifts, will complete high school with a foundation of learning necessary to thrive in life, work and continued learning.

The [school district] provides a learning environment that fosters the growth of each student’s potential and provides equitable opportunity to develop the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for meaningful participation in a global and diverse society.

The statements focus on the individual student and contain what, in a contract, would be an escape clause. “Individual abilities and gifts” and “each student’s potential” are weasel words that limit the responsibility of the school districts. Now, I doubt very much that the boards that adopted these statements said, “How can we limit our responsibility?” My point is that, from the outset, the statements see limitations over which the schools believe they have little control. Consider these alternatives:

Students will complete high school with a foundation of learning necessary to thrive in life, work and continued learning regardless of the individual abilities, gifts, and limitations they had when they entered the school system,

The [school district] will develop students’ knowledge, skills, and values necessary for meaningful participation in a global and diverse society regardless of the potential or limitations they possessed at the point of entry to the school system.

My point is that our conception of schooling is flawed and pessimistic from the beginning by, among other things, its focus on the individual rather than the society. The conception of schooling as primarily focused on the individual puts school and program choice ahead of social equity as priorities. Prioritizing choice over equity makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create a common educational and social experience.

Schooling results in positive outcomes for most students much as the health care system generates positive outcomes for most Canadians. The problem is that the outcomes are determined more by their socio-economic and marginalized circumstances than by the benefits of the schooling they receive. The measure of a school system is the degree to which it helps those whose circumstances pose barriers to their success to succeed.   

The fragmented experiences of individual learners do little to counter the forces that divide us, putting the lie to developing “the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for meaningful participation in a global and diverse society.”

 Our system of schooling needs to be re-conceptualized using as its starting point a vision of the society we want.

This will be my last blog for this school year, but I invite you to think about the society you want and how schooling can help to achieve that vision. If your time permits, please share your thoughts with me at oneducationcanada@gmail.com.

Advocacy – Part 3

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 

In last week’s blog, I wrote that an effective advocacy campaign is not simply determining the “ask.” It is designing a plan to overcome the formidable challenges that the board will face in advancing its case. To overcome these challenges, school boards can take several concrete steps.

Focus on board priorities that align with government’s priorities: School boards should identify their top advocacy priority and focus their efforts on the one that aligns with the goals and priorities of government.

Issues are not equally important. What issues merit the effort that advocacy requires? What is the probability that one’s advocacy will be successful? What are the risks and consequences if it is not?

Calculate costs and benefits: Boards that wish to advocate should ask themselves what use they might make of the political capital the board must draw upon in advancing its case? Is the expenditure of that capital justified by the outcome being sought?

Collaborate with other stakeholders: School boards should collaborate with other education stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and education organizations, to build a broader coalition in support of their advocacy efforts. Government may be more disposed if it perceives a larger constituency than a single board. Effective advocacy is more likely if it is conducted though organizations such as those that represent a collection of boards or trustees to ensure that the “ask” is for the system and will provide system-wide benefits.

Build relationships: Developing strong relationships with elected officials and government agencies can help school boards advocate more effectively. Meet with officials, attend events, and plan how the board will reach its public and the groups that can support its efforts.

Building relationships with elected officials and government agencies should be done carefully through the provincial trustees’ association to avoid conflict between the superintendent, who works closely with Ministry officials, and trustees whose relationships are typically with Ministers

Developing and maintaining back channels is important. Governments do not like surprises. Having a back channel helps keep government informed and can provide useful intelligence about how requests might be framed.  Influence is often more powerful when exercised out of sight of the public and media. This gives government room to understand, negotiate, and counter instead of reflexively going on the defensive against what it perceives as criticism.

Communicate effectively: Identify key stakeholders and allies. Express clearly what the board hopes to achieve and how what the board hopes to achieve aligns with the values of the allies and stakeholders.

Be respectful: It is important to distinguish people from issues or positions – especially when there are differences in values or opinions. It is probably obvious but demonizing the person whom you hope to influence does not work. 

Be persistent: Advocacy is a long-term process. A short-term orientation is the enemy of effective advocacy. School boards typically lack persistence if they meet with opposition or indifference. Effort must be ongoing and tactical. School boards must anticipate the obstacles they are likely to face and be willing to change their plans when they meet with opposition.

Although advocacy efforts are often unsuccessful and sometime worse, they can succeed with careful planning and execution. But planning and execution rarely receive the attention the successful advocacy requires.

Advocacy – Part 2

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 

In last week’s blog, I wrote that advocacy with provincial governments is typically handled poorly by most school boards in part because school boards fail to appreciate that they are in an asymmetrical relationship to provincial governments. A second reason that efforts at advocacy are often unsuccessful is that those efforts are often poorly planned. To succeed, advocacy must be part of a carefully conceived and executed plan.

Careful consideration must be given to the desired outcome. Asking whether it is possible to achieve the outcome is an important and often unasked question. Does the body one is trying to persuade possess the authority and capacity to produce the outcome? Asking a body for something that it lacks the authority to produce cannot succeed. For example, a body that is a party to a contract cannot provide or produce an outcome that will require it to change the contract to which it is committed without the agreement of the other parties to the contract. Asking government for additional funding after it has passed its budget is unlikely to succeed because it requires altering a decision to which the government has committed itself. 

Asking for something of which other school boards also believe they are deserving puts the government in an awkward position. It cannot give to one board something that all or most boards believe they need. And asking a government to do something that is contrary to their political commitments is also unrealistic.

The challenges that school boards face in advocating with senior governments are formidable and numerous. All school boards have limited resources (time, money, and personnel) they can dedicate to advocacy efforts. Resources are even more limited in smaller boards.  Governments have many competing priorities. Health care, housing affordability, poverty reduction, homelessness, and climate change are more likely to be ahead of education on government’s agenda.

Education – like most public issues – occurs in a complex policy landscape that most school boards do not consider when they decide to advocate for their interests. How does the issue about which the school board wishes to advocate align with government’s beliefs and commitments? Can addressing the issue that the school board wishes to have addressed help government achieve its priorities and commitments? Supply the evidence.

Advocacy efforts are inherently political. They are about whose values will be approved and supported, and whose will not. It is important to understand the interests and agendas at play. The campaign is not simply the “ask.” The campaign must include consideration of how, to whom, and by whom the request will be made. I’ll address these issues in my next blog.