canada education

8/8/2019 Canada Education

1/16

Global Change and Educational Reform in Ontario and CanadaAuthor(s): Brian O'SullivanSource: Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'ducation, Vol. 24, No. 3(Summer, 1999), pp. 311-325

Published by: Canadian Society for the Study of EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585878Accessed: 03/12/2010 00:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=csse.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Canadian Society for the Study of Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'ducation.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cssehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1585878?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=csse


2/16

GlobalChangeand EducationalReformin Ontarioand CanadaBrian O'SullivanfatherbressanicatholichighschoolCanadianeducationhasbeenrespondingtoglobalchangeformanydecades.Overthe last30 years,twoglobalparadigmshavedominateddebatesabouteducationin Ontarioandin Canada.The firstparadigm,globaleconomiccompetitiveness,maintainsthatknowl-edgehas becomethecompetitiveadvantageof industrialnationsin theglobaleconomyandthatutilitarianprinciplesshouldguideoureducationalreforms.Thesecondparadigm,globalinterdependence,holds thatwe shouldacknowledgeour interdependentglobalneedsandresponsibilitiesandthatthisshouldguideoureducationalreforms.I arguethatto preparestudentsfortheglobalchallengesof the newcentury,excellencein educationshouldbe definedas meetingtherequirementsof bothparadigmsandas includingthestudyof allmajorglobalchange-economic andtechnological-as wellasthestudyofworldcultures,politics,ecology,andhumanitarianissues.Depuisles 30 dernieresannees,deuxparadigmesdominentles debatssurl'educationenOntarioet dansl'ensembledu Canada.Le premierparadigme,la mondialisationde lacompetitiviteeconomique,maintientquela connaissanceestdevenuel'avantageconcur-rentieldes paysindustrialisesdansl'economiemondialeet quedes principesutilitairesdevraientguiderles reformesen education.Le secondparadigme,l'interddpendanceal'echelle mondiale,soutientque nous devrionsreconnaitrel'interdependancede nosbesoinset de nosresponsabilitesa l'echellemondialeet quec'estce principequidevraitguiderles reformesen 6ducation.L'auteuravancepoursa partque pourpr6parerlesel6ves aux d6fismondiauxdu nouveausi6cle, l'excellenceen 6ducationdevraitetredefinie en fonctiondes exigencesdes deuxparadigmes,ce qui supposel'6tudedeschangements6conomiqueset technologiquesal'6chellemondialeainsiquel'6tudedesdiversescultures,de la politique,de l'ecologieet desquestionshumanitaires.In some respects Canadianeducationhas been respondingto global change formore than a century.In recenttimes, two global paradigmshave influencedthecourse of educational reforms in Ontario and Canada. The first maintainsthatknowledgehas become the competitiveasset andadvantageof industrialnationsin the global economy and that a core curriculumof subjects such as math,science, technology,and languageproficiencyshould be at the centreof educa-tional reforms. This paradigmof global economic competitiveness asserts thatknowledge is a commodityandthat Canadianshave national interests to protectin a common global future. In contrast,the second paradigmargues that weshould acknowledge our interdependentglobal needs and responsibilities andthat this is what should guide educationalgoals and reforms. This paradigm

CANADIANJOURNALOF EDUCATION24, 3 (1999): 311-325311


3/16

BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

acknowledges the realities of technology and the global economy but goesfurther,also valuing studyof boththe interdependenceof globalpolitics, culture,and ecology and the ethical issues we must confront in our common globalfuture.These two conflictingparadigmsforeducation,globaleconomic competi-tiveness and global interdependence,have dominated educational debate inOntarioand in Canada,especially in the last 30 years.The paradigmof globaleconomiccompetitivenessprevailedin the lastdecadeof the 20th century,but it wasjust as pervasiveat the beginningof thatcentury.In 1907, theCanadianManufacturers'Associationdeclared,"Thecompetitionofthe world has become so strongthat we cannotafford to fall behindin the racefor efficiency. . ... Technical education must come ... we must educate ourpeople towardsefficiency" (p. 844). This fear of falling behind in the globaleconomy continued to preoccupyCanadiansfor the rest of the century.AfterWorld War II, educational reforms were justified as essential to maintainingCanada'sposition as a front-rankdefenderof the free world, and, in the case ofthe Robartsreorganizationof educationin Ontarioof 1962, as a way to meet thecomplex educationalrequirementsof a highly industrializedsociety (Fleming,1972).The secondparadigm,educationaboutglobal interdependence,emergedat theend of the 1960s with the convergenceof three factors:unprecedentedglobaladvances in mass media, greateconomic prosperityin industrialnations, and alarge, well-educatedpopulationof youth. Students and educators of that timewere exposed to global reportssuch as the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth(Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972) and later those of Brandt(1980) and Brundtland(1987). These reportsdemonstratedthathumanitysharedmany interdependentglobal problemsand responsibilities,and this perspectivebecamea benchmarkfor educationalreformfor a new generationof studentsandeducators.THE HALL-DENNIS REPORTAND THE PARADIGM OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCEIn the late 1960s, people believed stronglyin education'sability to reconstructthe worldandcreateajust society.Ontario'sHall-Dennisreport(OntarioDepart-ment of Education, 1968) was an eloquent statementof those times and of aneducationabout global interdependence.Writtenjust after Canada'scentennialyear and submitteda year beforeNeil Armstrongwas to walk on the moon, thereportdeclared:Westandtodayinthedawnof oursecondcenturyandassessthe fieldof futureeducation... we mustnot losesightof thehumanneedsthatthenew dawnbrings... we haveinourhandsthe meansof changeforhumanbetterment... forthepeopleof Ontario...forall Canadians,andhopefully. . . [for]all mankind.(p.9)

312


4/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORMThe report was deliberately global in its references, asserting that educationshould promote understanding,tolerance,and friendshipamong all nations andfurtherthe activities of the United Nations. It also claimed that schools had asignificantmandateto educate studentsabout such issues as the threatof nuclearwar,the role of Canadain worldaffairs,air and waterpollution,and the expan-sion of the world's population (p. 67).Althoughthe Hall-Dennisreportoftenalludedto the importanceof a paradigmdevoted to global education and internationalunderstanding,it did not providespecific and structuralrecommendationsfor operationalizingthis kind of globalparadigmin the Ontariocurriculumor its educationalgoals. The reportunfortun-ately placed most of the responsibilityfor curriculumdevelopment on schoolstaffs and school boards.Now, more than 30 years later,it may be arguedthatthis failure to help implementa paradigmof global interdependenceand inter-national understandingwas the report's great lost opportunity.It left under-developed, for over a quarter-century,a curriculartraditionthat could success-fully challenge the paradigmof global economic competitiveness.GLOBAL UNCERTAINTYAND THE DEBATE ABOUT EDUCATIONALSTANDARDS

By the early 1970s, global developmentssuch as high unemployment,the OPECcrisis, and the rise of Japanin world trade made Ontarianstake more seriouslythe link between education and continuedprosperity.However, their best andratheruncriticalsolution to these challenges was a demand,by such groups astheCanadianManufacturers'Association and the Chamberof Commerce(Curtis,Livingstone,& Smaller,1992), for educationthat went "backto the basics" andensured employability.Ontariograduallyincreased the numberof mandatorycredits in its high school diploma:to 6 in 1974, 7 in 1977, 9 in 1979, and 16 in1984. Furthermore,theMinistryof Educationreleased more than 150 curriculumguidelinesfor the Intermediateand Senior Division and,in 1976, announcedthatit would revise Ontario's curriculumguidelines to get a firmergrip on theircontent,makingthem more prescriptiveand more practical.The Ontariopublic seemed to believe thatthe best responseto global changewas not a serious investigation of the causes of such change in economics,technology, ecology, society, and politics-and the inclusion of these in itseducationalreforms-but ratherthe implementationof standardsandrigour.Ineffect, neitherglobal paradigmguided Ontario'seducationalreforms.RECONSIDERINGA PARADIGM OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCEFOR ONTARIOAlthoughthe global paradigmeludedthepublicat large,it did not eludeMinistryofficials or the educationcommunityin Ontario.In January1980, the Ministryof Educationand the Ministryof Colleges andUniversitiesdrew togethersenior

313


5/16

BRIANO'SULLIVANstaff to form a StrategicPlanningTask Group(SPTG) whose mandate was todeal with strategic issues that would affect education in Ontariofor the next5-20 years.The SPTG conductedenvironmentalscans about some 80 importantconcerns, consolidatingits work in the reportTowardsthe Year2000 (OntarioMinistryof Education,1984). It arguedthateducationmust,as a system,prepareitself and its studentsto anticipateand to adaptto global change, and that to doso would requirerenegotiatingthe goals of Ontarioeducation.It recognizedthatglobal conditions, such as cultural and demographic changes, environmentalchanges, new employabilityskills, and the changedroles of women in society,should influence Ontario'seducationpolicy. The reportaddedthat the govern-mentshould improveits scanningandanalysisinfrastructureto anticipatefuturelong-range strategicissues for education.Despite this report'scomprehensiveplan for reformingOntarioeducationand despite its generalacknowledgementof an educationalparadigmof global interdependence,Towardsthe Year2000was out of stepwith an Ontariopublicthathad becomequitenarrowlyutilitarianabout its expectationsfor education.A survey of public attitudestowards education in Ontario,conductedby theOntario Institutefor Studies in Education,found that the public rankedits firstand second prioritiesfor high school education as job trainingand careerprep-aration(Livingstone& Hart,1981),and that it highlyvaluedcomputereducation,followed by science, then by business and vocational education (Livingstone,Hart,& Davie, 1985).TheROSEreport,as TheRenewalof SecondaryEducationin Ontario(OntarioMinistryof Education,1982) came to be known, generallyreflected these views: "Thepublic expects the schools to provide studentswitha useful basic education thatpreparesthem for directentryinto employmentorfor post-secondaryeducation. . . [with] more demandingstandardsof achieve-ment and discipline" (pp. 4, 5).RADWANSKI AND THE NEW GLOBAL BENCHMARKFOR ONTARIO EDUCATIONThe Radwanskireport(Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education and theIssue of Dropouts;Radwanski,1987) became the firstmajorpolicy documenttoarticulatesuccessfully to Ontariansthe province'sneed for a paradigmof globaleconomic competitivenessfor education.Citingthe findingsof a previousstudy(the 1986 Ontario Study of the Service Sector) in which Radwanski had alsobeen involved, it argued that "to compete effectively in a new knowledge-intensiveglobal economy . . . excellence in educatingourworkforceis oursinglemost importantstrategicweapon"(p. 11).Radwanski'sreportwas no doubtshapedby theperspectiveshe broughtto thestudy as a journalistand influencedby several contemporaryreportson educa-tion: A Nation at Risk(U.S., NationalCommissionon Excellence in Education,1983), A Nation Prepared (CarnegieForum on Education and the Economy,

314


6/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM

1986), andMakingTechnologyWork(EconomicCouncil of Canada,1987). Allthreeunderscoredthe importanceof a highly educatedworkforcefor success inthe global economy.The significantlegacy of theRadwanskireportwas that,forthe first time, the Ontariopublic's long-standingcurricularpriority of careereducation andjob preparationwas turnedinto a global concern. In effect, sinceRadwanski (1987), the public has demanded that the paradigmof global eco-nomic competitivenessbe the new standardof reference for Ontario education.Although Radwanski proposed that education also include the study of thehistoryand geographyof Canadaand the world because "we live in an increas-ingly interdependentworld"(pp. 47, 52), his main argumentwas thatOntarianshad economic interests to protectin a common global future.The year after the Radwanskireportappeared,the OntarioPremier'sCouncilissued Competingin the New Global Economy(1988); two years later came theCouncil's subsequentreport,People and Skills in the New Global Economy(1990). The firstreportemphasizedthe importanceof science andtechnology forinternationalcompetitivenessin industryandeducation;the second underscoredthe link between educationand global competitiveness.A NATIONALEDUCATIONDEBATEABOUT GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESSOntario'scalls for educationalreformin the late 1980s andearly 1990s were partof a larger global trendin industrialnations,that of assertingthat globalizationhad broughtabouta crisis in education.Reforms of educationsystems in othernations-the United Kingdom (The EducationReformAct, 1988), the UnitedStates (America2000; Goals 2000), France(Loi d'orientationsur l'education,1989) andJapan(TheFourthand Final Reporton EducationalReform,1987)-were enacted in responseto the restructuringof the global economy in the late1980s and early 1990s. In Canada,majoremployerssuch as CN Rail, Dofasco,ImperialOil, and IBM Canadacut their workforcessignificantly.Moreover,newknowledge-intensive industries in computers and semiconductors,health andmedical care, and telecommunicationsmade new educationaldemands of theworkforce(Beck, 1992).The debate about reformingCanada's education system became even moreintensein 1991 withthe releaseof two Governmentof Canadadiscussionpapers,Learning Well ... Living Well (Canada, Prosperity Secretariat, 1991a) andProsperityThroughCompetitiveness(Canada,ProsperitySecretariat,199lb). Theformer proposed national learning targetsfor Canada: that 90% of Canadiansobtain a high school diploma;that the numberof post-secondary graduatesinscience, engineering,andtechnologydouble;that Canadabecome a world leaderat all levels in math and science; and that there be increasedrepresentationofwomen in math, science, and technology programs. Not surprisingly,theseeducation targets were very similar to U.S. PresidentGeorge Bush's national

315


7/16

BRIAN O'SULLIVANeducationplan released the previousyear.ProsperityThroughCompetitivenesswas critical of Canada's school-to-worktransition;it found schools effectivelyunconnected to the world of work, and it favoured a consensus to establishCanada-widegoals for education and training.Even colleges and universitieswere not exempt from this debate.Reportsby the CanadianChamberof Com-merce(1993), The NationalDirectionfor Learning,andby the Economic Coun-cil of Canada(1992), A Lot to Learn, arguedfor greateremphasis on science,math, and engineering education to enable Canada to compete in the globaleconomy and for greatercongruencebetween education and employers' needs."Marketresponsiveness"became the magicphrasefor universities,advocatedbysuch groups as the FraserInstitute,the C. D. Howe Institute,the ConferenceBoard of Canada,and the CanadianManufacturers'Associationand in themedia(Emberley,1996, p. 154).These calls foreducationdevoted to globaleconomiccompetitivenesswerenotbased on criticalanalysisof the presumedlink between education andthe econ-omy.Ratherthaninvestigatingthe impactof trade and tariffpolicies, the role ofresearchand development,or the merits of enhancedindustrialtrainingin theworkforce,many groupsuncriticallyassumed that educationalone drove Can-ada's global prosperity.GLOBAL ECONOMICCOMPETITIVENESSVERSUS GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCEBy the early 1990s, it was apparentthattwo distinctparadigmswere competingfor control of the educationalreform agenda: education for global economiccompetitivenessandeducationfor global interdependence.Groupsadvocatinga paradigmof educationfor global economic competitive-ness included the formerEconomic Councilof Canada,the Business CouncilonNationalIssues, the CanadianChamberof Commerce,the ConferenceBoardofCanada,the ProsperitySecretariatof the federalGovernment,andthe Premier'sCouncil of the Governmentof Ontario.They called for substantialbusinessinvolvement in educationalreformand identified areas such as math, science,literacy,and technology as importantprioritiesin new curricularreforms. TheConference Board of Canada's EmployabilitySkills Profile (1992) focusedon almostexactly the skills listed up by the U.S. Departmentof Labor and U.S.business groups.HarvardprofessorMichaelPorter'sstudyCanada at the Cross-roads (1991) arguedthatCanada'sprosperitydependedon Canadianbusiness'sforging closer ties with educationalinstitutions,including having more directinfluence on curriculumat universities,colleges, andtechnicalinstitutes and onthe establishment,by government,of nationalstandardsfor education. The finalreportof Canada'sProsperitySecretariat,InventingOur Future(1992), called fora national forum on education;advocated increased interest in mathematics,

316


8/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORMscience, and technology-relatedskills; and proposed stronger links betweenschools and the world of work.Groupsthatadvocatedtheopposingparadigm,global interdependence,includ-ed theCanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency (CIDA)and theRoundtableson the Environmentand the Economy. In Ontario,education for global inter-dependencewas also supportedby the OntarioTeachers'Federation(OTF) andsome universities' graduateeducation faculties. Educators for global interde-pendence were motivated by the concern that students were unaware of thecomplex natureof global issues andtrends(Roche, 1989). By 1991, CIDA hadfundedglobaleducationoffices in eight Canadianprovincesto promoterelevantteacher educationand curriculumdevelopment.In explaining its mandate,theOntarioOTF/CIDAglobaleducationprojectassertedthateducationmust includepreparationfor the unprecedentedrate of change in the modern world and thatglobal concepts of social justice, peace, human rights, development, and theenvironmentbelong in the curriculum(Lyons, 1992). In April 1992, the OTFBoard of Governorspassed a resolutionsupportingeducation for a global per-spective in the Ontarioschool system.The movement favouringeducation for global interdependencearose from agrowing conviction that education needed to preparestudents for more thansimply economic concerns about the global economy. Tye (1990), Hanvey(1982), Kennedy(1993), Brown(1994), and O'Sullivan(1999) have demonstrat-ed that a wide arrayof global concerns-economic, technological, ecological,political, cultural,and humanitarian- should be dealt with in our educationalreforms. As well, traditionalstandardsof progressand excellence in industrialnations are being challenged in a worldof global change (Berry,1990; Daly &Cobb, 1989). Educatorshave had to reconsidertheir definitions of excellence ineducationandto acknowledgethat a relevantcurriculummust take intoconsider-ation all major global challenges. However, supportfor a paradigmof globalinterdependencewas not going to figure prominentlyin the nationaleducationdebates in Canada.THE CMEC AND THE NATIONALEDUCATIONDEBATEIn April 1993, the federal governmentannounceda strategythat would give itthe authorityto set nationaltargetsto improveeducation, to investigate redir-ecting federal tax dollars to fulfil such goals, and to mobilize public-sectorandprivate-sectoractivitiesin supportof a learningculturein Canada.The groupthatfelt the most intense pressureto act in the wake of this federalpronouncementwas the Council of Ministersof Educationof Canada(CMEC). In its VictoriaDeclarationof September1993, the CMEC asserted its right to act as Canada'snational voice in educational matters and committed itself to an action plan

317


9/16

BRIAN O'SULLIVANcentred on national curriculumcompatibility,national testing, and a nationalapproachto dealing with globalizationof the economy. It is worthnoting thatthe CMEC'sdraft of its mission statementearlierthatyear included referencesto the importanceof the environment,equity,and sustainabledevelopment-butthese were not the prioritiesstatedin the Victoria Declaration.The CMEC's School Achievement IndicatorsProgram(SAIP) was its mainstrategy in pursuitof national educationalstandards.In April 1993, the SAIPassessment in math and problem solving was administeredacross Canada to28,000 13-year-oldsand27,000 16-year-olds;theCMECconductedfurtherSAIPtests in literacy in 1994, in science in 1996, in math again in 1997, and inliteracy again in 1998. Pan-Canadianeducationconferences, mentioned in theCMEC VictoriaDeclaration,were soon underwayin Montrealin 1994 and inEdmontonin May 1996. By autumn1997, the CMECwas completinga frame-workfor a national science curriculum.That same year,it announcedthat it hadconductedimportanttalks withnationalcorporationsin banking,telecommunica-tions,andhigh-level technologyto identifythe kinds of knowledgeandemploya-bility skills needed in Canada'sschool system(Robertson,1998). Theconnected-ness of nationalachievementto globaleconomiccompetitivenesscontinues to bean importantpriorityfor the CMECin Canada'snational education debates.THE RAE GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMONCURRICULUMAgainst this backdropof national initiatives in education, some controversialdevelopmentsoccurredin Ontario when the NDP governmentunder Bob Raecame to power. In January1992, EducationMinisterTony Silipo announcedamajor restructuringinitiative for Grades 7-9 in Ontario schools that wouldprepare children for "an ever-changing world" and take education from anindustrialsociety to a post-industrialworld.Accordingto EmberleyandNewell(1994), muchinspirationfor this initiativecame from the taskforce reportof theCarnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Turning Points: PreparingAmerican Youthfor the 21st Century.In September1992, the governmentan-nouncedthatby September1993, Grade9 courses would no longerbe streamedinto advanced, general, and basic course levels. In addition,the Grade 9 cur-riculumwould be convertedfromcredit courses to integratedstudies in the fourcore program areas: language; the arts; self and society; and mathematics,sciences, and technology.These reforms,dubbed the three "D's" (de-labelling,de-streaming,de-coursing),were stronglycriticizedby parent groupsand busi-ness interests.Perhapsin responseto this criticism,the governmentannouncedin its 1993 Thronespeech thatit plannedhave the entire school systemreviewedby a Royal Commissionon Learningco-chairedby GeraldCaplanandMoniqueBegin. Launched in May 1993, the Commission had a very broad mandate toexamine the purposeand direction of Ontario'sschool system.

318


10/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORMThe governmentreformsandtheirprojectedoutcomes for Ontarioeducation(Grades 1-9) were eventuallydetailedin several versions of the CommonCur-riculum,the firstof which appearedin 1993 (OntarioMinistryof EducationandTraining,1993). The Common Curriculumrecognizedthe importanceof globalinfluences on educationand society as well as the impact of rapidly changingtechnology on educationin Ontario.Its final version, released in 1995 (OntarioMinistry of Educationand Training, 1995), established specific outcomes forGrades3, 6, and 9 and articulated10 essentialcross-curricularlearningoutcomesfor Ontario,of which 3 were explicitly global. This documentexplictly recog-nized the great importanceof both global economic competitivenessand educa-tion for global interdependence.Missing fromthe final version was reference toa studentcommitmentto peace, socialjustice, andprotectionof the environment.However, the documentcontinuedto draw some groups' ire for severalreasons.The Coalition for EducationReform,an educationallobby group,was generallycritical of outcome-based education because it believed the system lacked anymeans of measuringstudents'achievementin core curriculumsubjects. Othersthought the essential cross-curricularoutcomes in the Common Curriculumdependedtoo heavily on the ConferenceBoard of Canada'sEmployabilitySkillsprofileand were a concessionto businessadvocacygroups(Emberley& Newell,

1994, p. 39). As one journalistnoted (Lewington, 1994), the struggleto set outcurricularobjectivesfor Ontariostudentshad been a gruellingexercise in whichsuccess eludedgovernmentsled by all threepartiesover thepreviousdecade(the1980s).Moreover, the report of Ontario'sRoyal Commission on Learning (1994)provided little investigationor analysis of the global forces affecting Ontarioeducation.Althoughthe Rae governmentmade some efforts to balancethe twoglobal paradigmsin its policy reforms for Ontarioeducation- similar to theefforts of governments duringthe Hall-Dennis era-these efforts were insuf-ficient to implementthe new reformsin curriculaor new education initiatives.In 1995, Rae's NDP governmententered a provincialelection promisingto acton several of the Royal Commission's recommendationsand to devise a newprovincialcurriculum.With the government'sdefeat, any such pursuitof globalgoals for Ontarioeducationas partof governmentpolicy also ended.THE HARRIS GOVERNMENTAND THE TWO GLOBAL PARADIGMSThe election of the Harrisgovernmentin Ontarioin 1995 shifted the debateabout educationalreform from concerns over the two global paradigmsto oneabout"rigour"in educationandaboutcuttinga billiondollarsfromtheprovincialeducationbudget.It soon became apparentthatthe Harrisgovernmentaimed toachieve neitherglobal paradigm.Rather,its goal was to centralize its power overprovincial education by reducing the authorityof school boards and teacher

319


11/16

BRIAN O'SULLIVANfederationsand to assertmore controlover provincialcurriculum,reportcards,and provincial testing. Although the Harris government did not specificallyarticulatea positionon eitherglobalparadigmforeducation,it pursuedthe kindsof global structuraladjustmentstypical of business corporationsin the 1990s:namely, it downsized its bureaucracy,outsourcedits work, privatizedits work-force, centralized its operationalauthority,and made deep budgetcuts.The Harrisgovernmentsubstantiallycut the budget for educationand madeno promisesthatthese funds would ever be reinvestedin the educationsystem.The exact magnitudeof cuts is debatable,butMackenzie(1999) arguesthattheHarrisgovernmentcut more than$525 million priorto enactingBill 160 (TheEducationQualityImprovementAct) and a further$672 million in ongoing cutsbased on the Bill 160 fundingformula. Bill 160 furthercentralizedprovincialcontrol over school boardfundingand teachers'workingconditions,and in itsearlierproposalseven sought to allow uncertifiedteachers into the profession.The Harrisgovernment'splanin Bill 160 to centralizeits provincialauthorityled126,000 Ontarioteachers to strike for two weeks in the autumnof 1997. Thecombinedresult of Bill 160 and Bill 104 (The Fewer School Boards Act) waseffectively to end the independenceof local school boards. Bill 160 relievedmunicipalitiesof about $5.4 billion spent on schools (Middlestaedt& Rusk,1997) andgave theprovincialcabinetunprecedentedpoweroverfutureeducationtax rate increaseswithoutrequiringlegislative approval(Mackie, 1997).The new provincialcontrol over the elementaryschool curriculumbegan inSeptember1997 with the implementationof new Grade 1-8 Math andLanguagecurriculacontainingdetailedlists of mandatoryexpectations(followed by courseoutlines in other subjects).Gone were references to equity and antiracism,keyconcepts in the NDP's Common Curriculum(Small, 1997). The high schoolreformagenda,which began in September1999, has few links to either globalparadigm.It centres on minor changes to the Ontariodiploma requirements,streamedGrades 9 and 10 courses, a standardizedprovincialreportcard, pro-posed teacher mentors, annual education plans for students, having studentsperform40 hours of communityservice, and the implementionof a Grade 10literacytest.Its failure to providea new high school curriculumafteralmost threeyears inoffice was problematicfor theHarrisgovernment.InJanuary1998, in a dramaticdeparturefrompast practice,the governmentannouncedthat it would outsourcethe provincial curriculumon the basis of competitive bids from the privatesector. This action was consistent with patternsobserved by authors such asWinner(1999), who has arguedthatmany global forces which have transformedcorporatestructuresin the economy now promisealso to alter educationat alllevels (leading to, for example, downsizing, outsourcing,and more part-timepermanentemployment).Thatgroupsor individualswishingto bid on one of the13 Ontariosubject areashad to download the bid documents from MERX, anelectronic online service (Small, 1998), provoked considerable controversy,

320


12/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM

especially because the bidding was open to U.S. companies. Subsequent ap-proval, in June 1998, allowing U.S textbookcompaniesto compete for the $100million fund for textbook sales to Ontarioschools also upsetCanadianpublishers(Girard, 1998).The resulting Grades 9 and 10 curriculumdocuments were published anddistributedto Ontario schools in March 1999. They make passing reference intheir introductionsto the importanceof theirsubjectsin a global context (suchas, in French,"to enhancetolerance andrespect for other cultures"and, in theArts, "to gain insight into the human condition"),and they include topics ofglobal importance.However,because of the haste to providethese documents tothe publicbefore the 1999 provincialelection, there was no seriousdebate aboutthe overall goals and purposeof Ontarioeducationin a global context. Perhapsthe most telling absence of global goals appearsin the major governancedocu-ment for Ontariosecondaryschools, OntarioSecondarySchools Grades 9-12:Programand Diploma Requirements,1999 (OntarioMinistryof EducationandTraining,1999). Its introductionstatessimply thatthe Ontariosecondaryschoolprogramis "designed"to equip studentswith the knowledge and skills neededto lead "satisfyingand productivelives in the twenty-firstcentury"(p. 6).CONCLUSION: EDUCATION, GLOBALIZATION,AND THE PUBLIC GOODFor the last 30 years, Ontariansand Canadianshave hadpragmaticexpectationsfor education.Incontinuingto supporta narrowutilitarianview of education,thepublic's prioritiesfor reform remainmostly technical:institutingprovincialandnationalassessment(SAIP),subscribingto nationallearningtargetsin education,andcentralizingeducationalgovernanceandpower. Highly public reformagen-das from other nations-in particular,U.S. thinkingabout educationalreformand the global economy-have consistently influenced Ontario educationalreforms since Radwanski.

The paradigmof global economic competitivenesshas dominatededucationalreforms,yet there has been little debateaboutthe problems posed by this kindof globalization. First, although students are encouraged to take challengingcourses to preparethem to be partof tomorrow'sworkforce,Fortune 500 com-panies shed more than583,000 high-technologyworkersin 1993 and economictrendspointto an abundanceof low-wage, low-technologyjobs (Boutwell, 1997).Similar Canadianstudies anticipatethe same low-wage job expansion (Living-stone, 1997; Paquette, 1995). As Rifkin (1997) points out, knowledge workerswill never be needed in largenumbersbecause theirs is an elite labour force inthis InformationAge. Second, when Canada'sglobal leadershipis putto the test,be it by peacekeepingin Kosovo or by participatingat the Kyoto environmentalsummit,studentsneed global skills beyond simply an education abouteconomiccompetitiveness.Third,globalizationalso challengesthe broaderpublicgood. AsKaplan(1997) argues,the concentrationof powerin some 500 largecorporations

321


13/16

BRIAN O'SULLIVANthat accountfor 70% of the world's trade raises new challenges for democracyand the maintenanceof aninformedcitizenry.McQuaig(1999) arguesthat"goodglobalization"of the 1940s to the 1970s-characterized by strong nationalgovernmentsthatexertedcontrolover investorcapitaland createdpolicies aimedat full employmentand strongsocial programs-is today undersiege and thata strong political will is requiredto protectthe public good. As Taylor(1998)argues,in aneraof globalization,the democraticnationstatemustremainstrongbecauseits citizenshave no otherinstrumentof democraticcontrol to modify theill effects of globalization.It is importantthat these aspectsof economic global-ization be understood-not only to clarify global economic trendsbut also tobetterinform debates aboutthe goals of educationin the contextof globalizationso as to ensureprotectionof the public good.It is by no meanseasy to negotiatethe goals of educationin a global context.In doing so, one must ultimatelyconsiderthe purposeof educationin a globalera and what constitutes a relevant curriculumin the midst of globalization.Powerful economic groupsarguethat the crisis before us is about success in theglobal economy,but this has been a clarion call from governmentand businesssince the start of the 20th century.Althoughpreparingfor the global economyis a worthwhile task for schools, an educationthatdisregardsthe studyof othersignificant global change is an incomplete education for the 21st century.Toestablish educational goals relevant in this era of globalization, educationalreforms should include the studyof all aspects of global change-changes notonly in economies andtechnologiesbut also in worldcultures,politics, ecology,and humanitarianissues-and of the extent to which they are all profoundlyinterdependent.ACKNOWLEDGMENTI thankMaryLaurellafor her suggestionsand editorial assistance.REFERENCESBeck, N. (1992). Shifting gears in the new economy.Toronto:HarperCollins.Berry,T. (1990). Thedreamof the earth. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books.Boutwell, C. E. (1997). CorporateAmerica's shell game for schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 104-111.Brandt,W. (1980). North-south:A programfor survival.Cambridge:MIT Press.Brown, L. (1994). State of the world report,1994. New York:W. W. Norton.Brundtland,G. (1987). Our commonfuture. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Canada, ProsperitySecretariat.(1991a). Learning well ... living well. Ottawa: GovernmentofCanada.Canada,ProsperitySecretariat.(1991b). Prosperitythroughcompetitiveness.Ottawa:GovernmentofCanada.

322


14/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 323Canada,ProsperitySecretariat.(1992). Inventingourfuture:An actionplanfor Canada'sprosperity.Ottawa:Governmentof Canada.CanadianChamberof Commerce.(1993). Thenational directionfor learning:A businessperspective.Ottawa: Author.CanadianManufacturers'Association. (1907, June).Efficiency.IndustrialCanada, 7 (no. 11), 844.CarnegieForum on Educationand the Economy.(1986). A nationprepared:Teachersfor the 21stcentury.Washington,DC: Author.ConferenceBoard of Canada.(1992). Employabilityskills profile. Ottawa:Author.Curtis, B., Livingstone,D. W., & Smaller,H. (1992). Stackingthe deck: The streamingof workingclass kids in Ontarioschools. Toronto:Our Schools/OurSelves EducationFoundation.Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the commongood. Boston: Beacon Press.Economic Council of Canada (1987). Making technologywork: Innovation andjobs in Canada.Ottawa: Author.Economic Council of Canada.(1992). A lot to learn. Ottawa:Author.Emberley, P. C. (1996). Zero tolerance: Hot button topics in Canada's universities. Toronto:

Penguin.Emberley,P. C., & Newell, W. R. (1994). Bankrupteducation: The decline of liberal education inCanada. Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress.Fleming, W. G. (1972). Education: Ontario'spreoccupation.Toronto:OISE Press.France,Ministerede l'education nationale.(1989). Loi d'orientation sur l'education du 10 juillet1989.Girard,D. (1998, June 19). Johnson defends buying U.S. textbooks for youngsters. TorontoStar,p. A6.Hanvey,R. (1982). An attainableglobal perspective.TheoryInto Practice, 21(3), 162-167.Japan,National Council on EducationalReform.(1987). Thefourth andfinal reporton educational

reform.Tokyo: Governmentof Japan.Kaplan,R. D. (1997, December).Wasdemocracyjust a moment?AtlanticMonthly,280, 55-80.Kennedy,P. (1993). Preparingfor the twenty-firstcentury.New York:Random House.Lewington,J. (1994, November3). Littledifference in Ontario'sredraftedschool curriculum.Globeand Mail, p. A8.Livingstone, D. W. (1997). Computerliteracy,the "knowledge economy" and informationcontrol:Micro myths and macro choices. In M. Moll (Ed.), Techhigh: Globalizationand thefuture ofCanadian education (pp. 99-116). Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Policy Alternatives/FernwoodPublishing.Livingstone, D. W., & Hart, D. J. (1981). Public attitudes toward education in Ontario, 1980.Toronto:OntarioInstitutefor Studies in Education.Livingstone,D. W., Hart,D. J., & Davie, L. E. (1985). Public attitudestowardeducation in Ontario,

1984. Toronto:OntarioInstitutefor Studies in Eduction.Lyons, T. (1992, March).Educationfor a global perspective.Orbit,23, 10-12.Mackenzie, H. (1999). Educationfunding in Ontario:How the governmentused its new fundingformula to short-changeour children's future. Our Schools/OurSelves, 9(5), 97-125.


15/16

324 BRIAN O'SULLIVANMackie, R. (1997, November20). Ontario's$6 billion tax levy blastedby critics. Globe and Mail,

p. A17.McQuaig, L. (1999). A matterof will. Queen'sQuarterly,106, 9-15.Meadows,D. H., Meadows,D. L., Randers,J., & Behrens,W. W., III. (1972). Thelimits to growth:A reportfor the Club of Rome'sProject on the Predicamentof Mankind.New York: UniverseBooks.Middlestaedt,M., & Rusk, J. (1997, January18). Ontarioshake-upa real rattler.Globe and Mail,

pp. Al, A8.France,Ministerede l'education nationale.(1989). Loi d'orientation sur l'dducation du 10 juillet1989. Paris:Author.OntarioDepartmentof Education.(1968). Livingand learning: The reportof the Provincial Com-

mittee on the Aims and Objectivesof Education in the Schools of Ontario [the Hall-Dennisreport].Toronto:Newton Publishing.OntarioMinistryof Education.(1982). Therenewalof secondaryeducationin Ontario:Responsetothe reportof the SecondaryEducationReviewProject.Toronto:Author.OntarioMinistryof Education.(1984). Towardstheyear 2000: Future considerations and strategicoptionsfor the supportof learning in Ontario. Toronto:Author.OntarioMinistryof EducationandTraining.(1993). The CommonCurriculum:Grades 1-9. Toronto:Author.OntarioMinistryof Educationand Training.(1995). The CommonCurriculum:Policies and Out-

comes, Grades 1-9. Toronto:Author.Ontario Ministry of Educationand Training.(1999). Ontario secondary schools Grades 9-12:Programand diploma requirements,1999. Toronto:Author.OntarioPremier's Council. (1988). Competingin the new global economy.Toronto:Author.OntarioPremier's Council. (1990). People and skills in the new global economy.Toronto:Author.OntarioRoyal Commission on Learning.(1994). For the love of learning.Toronto:OntarioMinistryof Educationand Training.O'Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformativelearning: Educational visionfor the 21st century.Toronto:Universityof Toronto Press.Paquette,J. (1995). Universaleducation:Meanings,challenges,andoptionsinto the thirdmillennium.CurriculumInquiry,25, 23-56.Porter,M. (1991). Canada at the crossroads:Therealityof a new competitiveenvironment.Ottawa:Business Council on National Issues/Governmentof CanadaRadwanski, G. (1987). Ontario study of the relevance of education and the issue of dropouts.Toronto:OntarioMinistryof Education.Rifkin, J. (1997). Rethinkingthe purposeof education:Preparingstudents for "The end of work."EducationalLeadership,54(5), 30-33.Robertson,H.-j. (1998). No more teachers,no more books. Toronto:McClelland & Stewart.Roche, D. (1989, May). A passion for the planet. Alberta Teachers' Association Magazine, 69,16-18.Small, P. (1997, August 30). The battle over the new curriculum.TorontoStar,pp. Bi, B5.Small, P. (1998, January27). Ontariocourses face U.S. input. TorontoStar,p. A6.Taylor,C. (1998). Globalizationand the future of Canada.Queen'sQuarterly,105, 331-342.


16/16

GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 325Tye, K. (1990). Global education: From thought to action. Washington, DC: Association for

Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopment.United Kingdom.(1988). TheEducationReformAct, 1988.United States. (1993). Goals 2000: EducateAmerica Act (1993).U.S. Departmentof Fxlucation.(1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington,DC:Author.U.S. National Commissionon Excellence in Education.(1983). A nation at risk. Washington,DC:U.S. Departmentof Education.Winner,L. (1999). The handwritingon the wall: Resistingtechnoglobalism'sassault on education.In M. Moll (Ed.), Techhigh: Globalizationand thefuture of Canadianeducation(pp. 167-188).Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Policy Altematives/FemwoodPublishing.BrianO'Sullivan is principalof FatherBressaniCatholicHigh School in Woodbridge,Ontario andcan be contactedat 190 St. Leonard'sAvenue, Toronto,Ontario,M4N 1K7.

canada education

Documents