As we know, secondary education in Quebec is a two-tier system, divided between its private, subsidized and selective network, and its public network, which concentrates a high proportion of students with learning difficulties. With the selection of the best students in the private sector and the concentration of students in difficulty in the same classes in the public sector, school segregation is created which contributes to school dropouts, to the difficulties of retaining teachers in the public network and which harms equality. chances.
To remedy this situation, many have proposed abolishing subsidies to the private network, since the cost of studies is currently subsidized at 75%. Without government subsidies, tuition fees in private schools would rise dramatically, causing a rush to the public sector. In theory, this new mix would favor pupils in difficulty, without harming better performing pupils.
This solution is impractical because it ignores the difficulty of changing existing institutions and overcoming opposition to reform. We don’t know how to absorb new students from the private sector into the public network, or what to do with private schools that have been emptied of a large proportion of their students. Since it aims precisely to reduce their “clientele”, the abolition of subsidies generates tenacious opposition on the part of private schools, which know how to stir up the fears of parents.
It is suicidal for all political parties to incur the wrath of parents, many and influential, who send their children to private school. The abolition of subsidies would force parents whose children attend private school to assume a considerable increase in tuition fees or else send their children to public school, the very school they have chosen avoid.
The solution proposed by École ensemble brilliantly circumvents these difficulties. It proposes a gradual transition over six years towards 100% financing of the private network. In exchange, this new “contracted” private network will no longer be able to select students. In addition, a choice of special course would be offered to all students. Admission to schools would be determined by geographical areas created to diversify the socio-economic level of parents.
Private schools would keep their separate administration and remain independent. Their opposition, like that of the parents, would be lessened since access to private schools is in no way limited (it would even increase). Certainly, some will prefer to keep the principle of student selection to favor their own child or their own school, but this selfish argument remains difficult to hold in the public space.
The École ensemble plan still allows parents who want to stay private (and who can afford it) to escape. Private schools will be able to become “unconventioned” and continue to select students, without receiving public subsidies. In short, Brébeuf will always be Brébeuf.
This proposal is superior to all the others. It is politically much more realistic than the abolition of subsidies because it would generate less opposition. It would considerably reduce the inequalities between public and private schools, more than if we were limited to abolishing entrance tests while maintaining subsidies at their current level. Indeed, the children of more affluent parents do better in the entrance tests and have the means to pay school fees.
In addition, École ensemble calculates that the reform would be at zero cost to the public treasury. If we assume that about half of the students in the private sector would turn to the unconventioned network despite the tuition fees being doubled or tripled, the reform would even generate more income than expenditure. It is likely that fewer students will decide to stay in the non-conventioned private sector, which would increase the costs for the State. The fact remains that the direct cost of this reform for public finances remains derisory compared to the social progress made in the medium term.
Reform proposals deserve to be debated. In primary school, the distribution by geographically delimited school areas seems quite logical, but is it the best solution in secondary school? Aren’t these school areas likely to be unfair or to contribute to raising the value of real estate in certain neighborhoods with better schools? It could be relevant that a proportion of the students chosen at random from among those enrolled could come from outside the geographical school catchment area. Thus, parents would still have the chance to send their child to their favorite school, further limiting their opposition to the reform.
Frankly, it is difficult for me to conceive of a public policy reform that would further reduce socioeconomic inequalities in Quebec in the medium term, especially at such a low cost. All parties that have the improvement of our education network and the reduction of inequalities at heart should defend it in the next election.