No big ideas in education during the campaign? Criticism is too easy.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
It’s true, we mainly debate small concrete measures. Of patching for a failing network.
But in the programs of the PQ and solidarity, a crucial issue is addressed. A taboo that others do not dare to address. Perhaps because it is easier to denounce than to settle. I am talking about school segregation caused by our three-tier school (private, enriched public and ordinary public).
Before going further, a word on the observation. In 2016, a shock sentence from the Superior Council of Education claimed that Quebec would have the most unequal system in the country. This only covered elementary and secondary – our child care network is a model in Canada and university tuition fees are among the lowest. And even for primary and secondary education, Quebec’s delay must be put into perspective. Several tests, such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS, show that Quebec obtains better results than the average for developed countries.
According to PISA, the less well-off in Quebec do better than those in Canada in reading and math. The gap between rich and poor has not increased either. And with us, it is also explained by the fact that gifted students are stronger than those in other provinces.1.
However, this good news hides some bad news. Among the pupils who attend the ordinary public in secondary school, barely 15% will go on to university. For the public with selection, the rate is 51%. And for the private sector, it’s 60%2.
The type of school is not the only factor. The result also depends on education and, to a lesser extent, parental income.
We can take comfort in the fact that the university graduation rate has increased in Quebec, particularly among students who are the first in their families to access it. However, one observation remains: the school does not yet succeed in giving everyone an equal chance.
Beyond the figures, several dramas are happening. Children are anxious because by the fifth grade, their marks already narrow the future possibilities which will be offered to them. Shopping will entice top performers to study away from home. In the “ordinary” public network, teachers who are already overworked will be taken on with a greater proportion of students in difficulty. Not to mention the alarming dropout rate among boys.
We can do better.
To strengthen equal opportunities, the Coalition avenir Québec has launched the Agir earlier program, which screens for learning disabilities in toddlers. It is also focusing on 4-year-old kindergartens. However, places are created more slowly than expected and services are not always accessible.
François Legault has converted school boards into service centers – the promised decentralization, however, is not being felt on the ground. Finally, it reduced fees in the public selective system.
The CAQ chief maintains the current system by trying to make it a little more efficient and fair. This is also the approach of the Liberal Party. Dominique Anglade would further reduce the parents’ bill. The public would still select students, but any program costing less than $5,000 would become free. The Liberals would also eliminate lunchtime supervision fees and double the school supply credit.
On the contrary, the PQ and solidarity want to attack the three-tier system.
They would put an end to public selection and, gradually, to private funding. Small difference, QS would abolish fees to the public, while the PQ would launch a Parent 2.0 commission on the future of education. According to them, such a reform must emerge from a social consensus. From the bottom to the top.
Parents are undoubtedly torn. They want their child to choose the best school. But they see that this competition is causing collateral damage.
The liberals and the caquistes approach the file from an individual angle. They wonder what voters want for their child. While the PQ and solidarity think about it from a collective point of view by looking for the best model for everyone.
Even if private schools are favored by the selection of their students, this is not enough to explain their success. Their initiatives and their staff’s sense of belonging no doubt also contribute to this.
They accompany students in difficulty and stimulate the gifted. Their good initiatives are taken up by the selective public.
It’s a beautiful model, for those who have access to it. But it makes collateral victims, such as the less privileged or successful who suffer from the lack of diversity in class3.
How to protect equal opportunities without leveling to the bottom? This is where the School Together movement comes in. Last May, this citizen group tabled a comprehensive plan4. He proposes that private schools retain their management autonomy and become fully subsidized. In return, they would no longer select their students. These would now be neighborhood schools. To the public, specific projects would be encouraged everywhere to reproduce successes like those in Princeville and La Ruche, which my colleague Marie-Eve Morasse has already spoken about5.
Several questions remain. How many students would leave the private sector? Since the ratio of pupils per class is generally greater there, would the shortage of teachers be aggravated? Would we demotivate an effective network? And would the rich simply move near the best schools?
In the middle, we felt an irritation in the face of School together. Their message: leave us alone, we are in control…
This citizen group has however the merit of getting out of clientelism to provoke a reflection on the network as a whole. On what has become a market.
Perhaps more pointed and practical solutions would be preferable. For example, abolish selection in the public sector and strengthen diversity in the private sector, even if it already exists there.
I do not know. I only know one thing: this debate should no longer take place between lobbies. We want to hear the experts first, and then the public.
In 1996, the Estates General on Education issued this warning: “We cannot, on the one hand, affirm that we want the success of the greatest number and, on the other hand, place the pupils with the least privileged under the most disadvantageous conditions. »
We can’t, said the report. And yet, we continue to do so.
2. Source: “School market in Quebec and the Reproduction of Social Inequalities” by Pierre Canisius Kamanzi, published in Social InclusionJanuary 2019.