Devolution & Choice in Education
Initially I imagined a study published by Whitty, Power and Halpin in 1998 would provide a comparable model for a review of Canadian public education policy. It would perhaps be possible to compare some of challenges found in undertaking such a study to the Canadian situation. Where the Whitty, Power and Halpin study compared five countries, a Canadian study would compare Canadian provinces and territories. How would such a study if shifted to a Canadian setting compare, what would the original study tell us? The original Whitty et al. study was conceived as a review of the effects of devolved systems of schooling. The researchers found however,
It was particularly clear that, in many countries, devolution has become linked with attempts to create markets, or rather 'quasi-markets', in education. Our title therefore became Devolution and Choice in Education. But we were also aware of the apparent paradox that, in many contexts, devolution of responsibilities to individual schools was accompanied by increased powers of surveillance on the part of central and state governments. Hence our sub-title The School, the State and the Market. The book now combines a review of research findings with an attempt to make sense of the 'bigger picture' that might help us to understand those findings. At the end of the book, we have also tried to consider some possible alternatives to quasi-market forms of devolution. (p. v)
Ozga (1990) is cited in the Whitty et al. article as pointing out that "specific policies -- and sometimes individual schools -- tend to be investigated in relative isolation from one another. There is certainly a divide in the relevant literature between research that focuses on the detail of educational self-management and its institutional application and that which concentrates on the 'bigger picture' of system-wide or even global restructuring." This translates nicely to the Canadian public education policy analysis situation. Specific policies, the commission reports as well as educational secondary and tertiary reports, tend to be analyzed in isolation without comparison to the other Canadian systems. The gap in the literature could be said to exist where research focuses on the detail of provincial management. This is contrasted to "that which concentrates on the 'bigger picture' of system-wide or even global restructuring.” In Canada, however, the policy 'bigger picture' is considered inaccessible as a consequence of the number of systems, the many levels of documental production, and last but not least, the constitution which encourages a blinkered approach. The aforementioned gap in the literature is "academically unsatisfactory" and has damaging results. The researchers of the study cite Grace (1984: xii): 'Those who have engaged with the close detail of policy and practice in urban education abstracted from wider issues' are open to the charge of 'producing school-centred solutions with no sense of the structural, the political and the historical as constraints'. This translates to Canada but up one level: 'Those who have engaged with the close detail of policy and practice in [provincial] education abstracted from wider issues' are open to the charge of 'producing [ministry-centred] solutions with no sense of the structural, the political and the historical as constraints." And to continue using the same level of translation: "Educational reform tends to be seen in terms of getting educational aims and objectives right -- ignoring the wider political dimensions of change. Focusing on the mechanics of [provincial] management means that system-wide issues [national issues], let alone the [national] dimensions of educational restructuring, are often lost from view.
An additional problem outlined by Whitty et al. is an academic split, a 'conceptual gulf' existing between the categories of 'policy science' and sociological critiques. Policy science focuses on a particular set of policy issues and lacks the grounding that sociological explanation would provide. The beguiling aspect of policy science is that it presents as neutral in perspective and provides concrete policy with specific policy action. But, "What risks being lost to view from this perspective is 'the examination of the politics and ideologies and interest groups within policy formations, and the wider structuring and constraining effects of the social and economic relations within which policy making is taking place' (Grace 1991:3) In the Canadian scenario, even when provincial/territorial policy analysis integrates, for example, a critical theoretical perspective, it nonetheless is 'constrained' by the lack of knowledge concerning public education policy analysis taking place in the provinces and territories of Canada. More precisely, according to the constitution, such an analysis is constrained by politics and provincial/territorial nationalism. Grace indicates that what is required to alter the conceptual gulf created through the limitations of 'policy science' is 'policy scholarship'. Policy scholarship in Canada involves digging below structural explanations (such as the example provided by Dorothy MacKeracher) and constructing a policy history, as a starting point, from and through the process of public government, the public education commission reports produced across the provinces and territories.
The other side of the 'conceptual gulf' is built from the limitations imposed by sociological critique where accounts on education reform show, "a dangerous tendency to interpret education policy only in terms of economic forces and multinational, even global, shifts." Sociological critiques ignore 'detail and complexity'. The problem according to Power (1995) is that arguments made from the point of view of sociological critique are often not supported by empirical evidence. The consequence is the 'bigger picture' but very little detail. In Canadian public education policy analysis, we have this problem because the 'detail' is 'hidden' and because the history of public policy education development in this country has been considered analytically impossible. The construction of the argument requires access to the royal commission reports of the 20th century and some work towards analyzing them historically. There are many examples of 'sociological critique' of public education policy in Canada (Maude Barlow, Stephen Laughton), but it is clear as we read these critiques that the detail, recourse to the empirical evidence, the commission reports, doesn't play much of a role in providing supporting arguments. An exception in this direction would be the writings of Ronald Manzer in both his 1994 and 2004 books, however, his approach is not 'sociological' but is rather a product of political science and particularly in his earlier book adheres to a rigid chronological categorizing of 'liberal' ideology. Manzer's books are dense and highly pedantic in style. The 1994 book suffers as a consequence of orienting out of a central Ontario history, the linear history of public education formation in English Canada begun by Egerton Ryerson in the 19th century. Further the 1994 book seems to find itself flirting with royal commissions and comparative rather as a consequence of being stumbled upon instead of as an analytical tool. Manzer’s 2004 book moves ahead to a very complex historical public education comparative of Canada with Australia and the United States. In the latter case, I would argue that the Canadian public education policy history has not been resolved into any overview that provides a basis against which an international comparative may be situated.
The goal of Whitty, Halpin and Power in the book is the 'difficult task of bridging the conceptual gulf' existing between policy science and sociological critique. Considered in the Canadian context attempting to bridge such a gulf is monumental when a good deal of ignorance exists about public education policy histories in other provinces and territories. There is no treatment that is available to Canadians that refers to the historical evidence, the commission reports. The downside to trying to conceptualize Canadian public education policy, to put into place 'policy scholarship' through such an approach as is described by Whitty, Halpin and Power,
Seeking to integrate the one with the other inevitably means that theoretical clarity will sometimes be partially obscured by empirical messiness, while what appear to be significant details in particular institutional and national [for 'national' read for Canadian purposes: 'provincial/territorial'] contexts may get lost in the attempt to make broader generalizations.
But
… until an attempt is made to connect the empirical detail and theoretical bigger picture, it is hard to see how we can understand the complexity of current education restructuring and develop sociologically informed alternatives for the future.
The Whitty, Halpin and Power study was interesting in assessing the limitations to the research imposed by the differences between the five countries they studied. The emphasis for the study was on similarities, but it was necessary for the researchers to qualify what looking for similarities between countries might mean to the notion of national integrity. First of all, policies are not necessarily transferable between countries because of cultural nuances: "Nevertheless, we do need to be aware of the dangers of superficial comparison….we have to be especially careful about using the experience of one context and applying it to others. …Education systems have particular structures and embody particular assumptions which are deeply embedded in their time and place." Translated to a Canadian scenario, such a comparative evokes the kind of tension existing between national, regional, and provincial/territorial levels that make studying Canada so interesting. Notwithstanding the Canadian reality of Quebec's differing status compared to the rest of the Canadian territories and provinces, where it is not repatriated in the 1982 Constitution of Canada, all the provinces and territories are circumscribed by some kind of national identity. Further the relationship between public education policy and the national level is nevertheless a product of a centralized national policy that decentralizes control over education. By comparison to the Whitty, Halpin and Powers comparative, a Canadian comparative would certainly not eschew the sensitivity required in applying the experience of one context [for 'context' read perhaps: region/province/territory of Canada] to another, but there is more possibility for deep analysis of similarities as well as differences as a consequence of the circumscribing of the provinces and territories by a national condition.
Finally, the Whitty, Halpin and Powers comparative provides analysis of late 20th century public education policy production in the countries of focus, analysis that provides insight to the Canadian royal commissions and other inquiries occurring at this time. What is evident is the appearance of school-based management, and a concomitant separation of schools from traditional public control with an additional tightening of some legislative aspects of public education at the federal level. This is the trend evident in Australia, New Zealand, England and Wales, Sweden and the United States. Stephen Ball describes this arrangement as international in scope. In Canada, the interplay would be assumed to exist at the local/provincial/territorial levels, and the comparative of Canadian public education policy would likely in overview show similar results to the international shifts outlined.
No comments:
Post a Comment