Sunday, April 21, 2013

Chapter 4: Categorizing the Data -- Early 20th century documents -- 1925 British Columbia, 1924 Manitoba

4.1b -- Early 20th century documents

 1925 British Columbia, 1924 Manitoba
   Some of the overarching Canadian education commission reports of the 20th century provide comprehensive reviews of education policy history right up to the point of the commission. The review of the historical precedents in education policy makes sense because the commission is charged with the responsibility of examining the public education system, assessing its quality and making recommendations to improve it. It would not make sense to undertake the work of a commission without a complete understanding of the policy history and without making this background available to the readers. The background provides important context. British Columbia’s Putman-Weir Report is the first public education policy document emerging in early 20th century Canada from the province of British Columbia. It is the first policy document of the 20th century to respond in comprehensive form, that of a commission, to fifty years of education policy development in British Columbia. The historical overview tracks the development of education from 1871 when British Columbia joined Canada.
   The members of the early commissions are extremely knowledgeable. Sometimes they are brought in from other provinces because of their expertise and this lends a treatment that is more national in focus. Each chapter in British Columbia’s Putman-Weir tracks the development of education policy nationally as well as provincially. The ideas are conveyed by experts knowledgeable about the current education of the time, international trends are integrated, and the provincial focus is neither overwhelmed nor underrepresented. Much more expertise concerning policy development and practice in other provinces is made available in this ‘provincial’ document than we would see today in a document of equivalent importance. It is a model for commission reports of the 20th century in terms of quality of content and treatment. The commission in 1925 produced recommendations it said would result in ‘radical changes’. The impact of educational psychology is mentioned. The goal was to ‘keep up to date and progressive’. The problem of taxing property owners and the capacity of farmers to pay taxes was an issue: “For the most part,” wrote the committee, “efficient education is demanded, even insisted upon, but there is widespread demand that it must be provided at lower cost to the property-holder than at present.” The costs of education were rising. The committee remarks, “…the widespread outcry against the mounting cost of education was dinned into the ears of the Commissioners at practically every conference held. This clamour is an echo of a universal complaint at the present time, and British Columbia is merely joining in the general hue and cry to eliminate all extravagant expenditures and so-called ‘frills and fads’ …”.
   The issue of the growth of education proceeding with lagging policy response is evident in the 1925 document. The naming of this problem in 1925 holds some interest for us in terms of 2025 and education policy making. I would argue that by 2025, at the latest, it will be clear to Canadians that a national response to education policy will be required. Section 93 will need to be reviewed and reshaped to guide public education in Canada for the 21st century. In concert with such change certain values concerning public education in Canada will be committed to at a national level. To quote from the 1925 report -- “machinery will be overhauled.” The direction of public education policy analysis in Canada is in a state of stasis. The national is hidden because there is no national definition; provincial public education isn’t grounded in any national context. This situation, to borrow from Putman-Weir, “like Topsy, just grew up, while no official or government [can] justly be held responsible for the merits or defects of its evolution.” 
   The British Columbia public education provincial history from 1871 to 1924 is documented in chapter one under section four. A parallel maturing is indicated in Manitoba’s 1924 document (not yet transcribed) and cited in British Columbia’s Putman-Weir. The provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia enter confederation in 1870 and 1871 respectively, are reviewing their policy fifty years later at this critical stage in 20th century Canadian public education policy. The 1920s documents permit an integration of certain themes to be considered in relation to Canadian public education. An overview of 20th century education policy documents is more inclusive whereas 19th century Canadian public education policy is about Ryerson’s work and the development of a public system with separate school arrangements. Manitoba and British Columbia are producing key public education policy responses fifty years after joining confederation, and by 1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan have joined confederation as well.
   The control of British Columbia education was centralized in 1871 with provincial support for schools in 1924 assessed at 38% of tax revenue. While it is assumed that the proportion of education funding nowadays has steadily increased from percentages that were historically less onerous than the ones we are experiencing now, this is perhaps not the case. The Parent Report of the Province of Quebec also cites a similar percentage of around 40% for the first half of the twentieth century. The rising costs of education are cited in Putman-Weir with calls for cuts to the ‘frills and fads’ by conservative public. The provincial system is described as highly centralized in 1924:

   It might seem that a half-century is a long period for the evolution of a school system from bureaucracy to some measure of fiscal autonomy, but in a Province like British Columbia, with little more than half a million people scattered over an area seven times as large as England and seven and one-half times as large as the State of New York, with great stretches of unproductive land, the problem of school government and school support assumes formidable proportions. It is safe to assert that if the children in remote districts of British Columbia are today enjoying school advantages, they owe their good fortune to a system of education, in some of its aspects, highly centralized.

   The 1925 British Columbia document captures a certain shift in education policy emphasis that is essential to understanding Canadian education policy in total. Prussia’s dominance in technical and industrial education referred to in 1913 has shifted in the 1925 British Columbia document to a British/Prussia comparative:

In the opinion of the Survey, such a system of centralized control and [provincial] administration – for administration and control cannot logically be separated – would be more Prussian than British in its essential characteristics. The enervating effect on our future democracy through the weakening of its powers of local self-government in school matters, with the consequent loss of local initiative and interest in the schools, would more than counterbalance any real or imaginary gains from such a dangerous experiment.

   What the 1925 British Columbia policy document also shows the influence “progressivism” has on education. Citing Dewey, this document identifies progressivism as a 20th century Canadian issue and force behind reform policy. I outline this point because recent attacks on progressivism as faulty “liberal” thinking, do not recognize that progressivism has been shaping policy from the first half of the twentieth century and includes reforms that are now part of collective understanding and assumption. Such an example suggests the ‘psychologizing’ of knowledge as well as asserting that morals and religion can exist independently of each other. 
   The 1925 document also reviews the introduction of middle schools from grades seven and eight. Greater numbers of student would complete grade eight with increased attention and enter into technical schools or academic high schools. The technical schools were built and added to the system and operated in relation to middle school changes. This document tracks the middle school history and the motivation behind the middle schools formation. In terms of historical information regarding this particular shift in Canada, the document is excellent.
   The justification for school boards and local control is also presented. The comments are interesting. They were made in 1925 and yet they parallel the raising of similar questions at the time of writing, 2010. The reference to control over school boards reminds us of Alberta and its 1990s interest in eliminating the school board level in the public education provincial bureaucracy. What Putman-Weir said in respect of such shifts is as follows:

   An examination of the arguments for the extinction of school boards and their absorption by the councils failed to satisfy the Survey as to their validity. The paramount and vital duty of keeping the schools free from the petty foibles and intrigues of ward politics and politicians can scarcely be over-emphasized. Nor do we believe that British Columbia has reached the stage in its social evolution that would make the analogy of school administration in England applicable in this Province. We do agree, however, with the import of the quotation given below to the effect that education and the administration of justice are the two most important departments of our national life, and that to undermine or weaken these departments would ultimately result in the collapse of our social system. [CanEdPolDoc1913BritishColumbia, Chapter 3]

By comparison, the next stage of development in Canada considered against such a statement is greater inter-provincial/territorial coordination as mandated by a centralized definition of public education in Canada. This would be written following a national commission’s study of the direction of Canadian public education policy in the 21st century. By 2025, it may well be that the one significant problem, that of provincial public education policy ‘growing up like Topsy,” has shifted one level up in terms of bureaucracy. There is a shift from regional/provincial-territorial to province-territorial/nation relationship. Adjusting the 1925 commission report quotation (referred to at the outset) up one level, provides us with an interesting comparative:

1925 Original:
At various sittings throughout the Province it was alleged by the representatives of different organizations that the present system of education, like Topsy, just grew up, while no official or government could justly be held responsible either for the merits or defects of its evolution. At times the system was modified to meet the more pressing needs of the day, but the machinery was never completely overhauled in the various processes of adjustment. The early design, apart from certain administrative provisions regarding district municipality organization in which British Columbia stands preeminent among the provinces of Canada, was intended for other and more primitive days when pioneer conditions were more prevalent and there was little complexity in our social organization. British Columbia, however, has outgrown the primitive stage in its educational thought and aspirations, and happily no one is more keenly sensitive to the need for adaptation of the system to meet modern conditions than are the educational officials entrusted with its administration. [CanEdPolDoc1913BritishColumbia, Introduction]

1925 British Columbia adjusted for the 21st century:
At various [public hall meetings] throughout [Canada] it was alleged by the representatives of different organizations that the present system of education, like Topsy, just grew up, while no official or government could justly be held responsible either for the merits or defects of its evolution. At times the system was modified to meet the more pressing needs of the day, but the machinery was never completely overhauled in the various processes of adjustment. The early design, apart from certain administrative provisions regarding [provincial] organization in which [Canada] stands preeminent among [western countries], was intended for other and more primitive days when [rural] conditions were more prevalent and there was little complexity in our social organization. [Canada], however, has outgrown the primitive stage in its educational thought and aspirations, and happily no one is more keenly sensitive to the need for adaptation of the system to meet modern conditions than are the [academics who find research and policy in Canadian public education to be in a state of crisis].



No comments:

Post a Comment