BCTF Information Services—Research & Reports

Last week, a Province blog post by Katharine Hamer raised the issue of free schools, an education model that has recently been introduced in England, and suggested that such a model in British Columbia could solve BC’s “education crisis.” (More on that the so-called "crisis" later in this post.)

England's coalition government has decided to allow groups of interested people – including parents, charities, universities, businesses, teachers, or educational groups – to apply to establish their own schools. According to the Department for Education, these schools are “non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools. There is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. They are not defined by size or location: there is not a single type of Free School or a single reason for setting them up.”

The ostensible unifying factor is that all of the schools are set up in response to local demand for more school choice, and for schools that reflect the needs and desires of local communities. The first 24 free schools opened in England this past September.

In developing this idea, the coalition government looked to two specific models: the free school movement in Sweden, and charter schools in the United States (in particular, the Knowledge is Power Program). Like US charter schools, free schools receive public funding but do not have to conform to the strictures that normal public schools must adhere to. They are largely free to determine their curriculum, they do not have to report to local education authorities (which perform similar functions as school boards do here), they can set their own pay and conditions for staff without having to worry about collective agreements, and they are able to hire teachers who do not actually have teaching credentials. The Department for Education argues that charter schools in the US have “shown how particular schools with these freedoms, coupled with inspirational teachers and leaders, can have a huge impact on academic performance and the numbers of pupils staying on in education.”

However, not everyone is altogether certain that US charter schools have been an unqualified success story. Research has shown that their effectiveness has been mixed, at best. While some charter schools have undoubtedly served some students (including minority and at-risk students) extremely well, some regular public schools have done the same; and some charter schools perform no better - or, indeed, worse – than their regular public school counterparts. A recent Answer Sheet blog post explores the research on charter schools:

• Matthew Di Carlo, “What the evidence on charter schools really shows,” November 16

Charter schools do exist in Canada, but only in the province of Alberta. In an informational brochure on the subject, the Alberta Teachers’ Association argues that

“the establishment of charter schools has meant that neighbourhood schools are left with less funding to educate higher-risk, harder-to-teach, higher-cost students. By encouraging the formation of charter schools, governments divert funding away from the public education system. Establishing charter schools allows governments to cater to the demands of narrowly focused, highly vocal, special interest groups. In the end, charter schools provide governments with an excuse to avoid implementing meaningful reforms that would enhance the quality of learning for the broader community.”

Swedish free schools have not been exempt from scrutiny, either. Unlike free schools in England, Swedish free schools are allowed to operate on a for-profit basis. According to a recent article in The Guardian, SNS, a business-funded Swedish think tank, has released a report that counters its typical pro-market viewpoints by arguing that the privately-operated free schools have “increased segregation and may not have improved educational standards at all.”

The Swedish minister of education, Jan Björkland, is planning to launch a parliamentary inquiry into free schools and school competition. He is quoted in the Guardian article as saying, “Loopholes in the legislation have meant that free schools can elect not to have a library, student counselling and school nurses.” Furthermore, “as they get just as much money as the municipal schools, the owners have been able to withdraw the surplus.” Perhaps most tellingly, the author of the SNS report says that although many municipal schools in Sweden are “horrendously bad,” “the difference between the free schools and the municipal schools is that the free schools actually have a profit incentive to reduce quality.”

(The SNS report is available here; however, it is only available in Swedish. Google Translate might come in handy. The Vlachos section begins on page 66.)

Other questions have been raised about Swedish free schools. In April 2010, the Times Educational Supplement reported that Ann-Christin Larsson, a senior officer with the teachers’ union Laraforbundet, said that the increased school competition created by free schools quashed the incentive to come up with new pedagogical ideas, and that free schools also increased segregation, as students in free schools tend to come from wealthier, better-educated families.

Recent research from Rebecca Allen, a Senior Lecturer at London University’s Institute of Education, found that Sweden “has fewer reasons to be concerned that a free school system will produce greater school stratification since the country’s lower levels of income and skill inequalities mean there is far less need for parents to choose schools based on social composition.” However, she also found that free schools have so far failed to transform educational attainment in Sweden.

In the UK, concerns about free schools have been articulated by the various teachers’ unions there. From the National Union of Teachers (NUT):

"The NUT opposes Free schools. We believe it is wrong that state funding should be given to small groups of individuals to run schools that are unaccountable to their local communities. In Sweden, where the Free Schools policy originated, three quarters of Free Schools are run by profit-making companies and there is clear evidence that they have resulted in segregation. The evidence on US charter schools is no better. We believe that Free Schools:

- are an attack on teachers' professional status

- will undermine national pay and conditions for teachers;

- will undermine local authorities;

- will break up common admission arrangements;

- will damage local democratic planning of school places;

- will redirect hundreds of millions of pounds that would be better spent on supporting existing schools."

Many see free schools as a sign of creeping school privatization. While they cannot be run for-profit in England (as they are in Sweden), their day-to-day operations can be delegated to for-profit companies, like Swedish free school chains Kunskapsskollan and Internationella Engelska Skolan.

Last week, The Guardian reported that the new free schools in England are “failing to take their fair proportion of pupils from low-income homes, when compared with neighbouring schools,” in spite of the government’s claim that free schools empower working-class families.

More on free schools from UK teachers' unions:

• NUT, Free schools: Beyond the spin of government policy 
• Association of Teachers & Lecturers, ATL Advice - Free schools 
• NAHT, Education Leaders' Guide to... Free Schools

An organization called the Anti Academies Alliance has also outlined an argument against free schools:

• Why you should say no to 'free' schools - Nov 2011

Incidentally, the use of the word “crisis” in the title of Hamer's blog post ought to raise a few eyebrows. Many observers of BC’s education system might be surprised to hear that we face an education crisis. Recent PISA rankings put Canada near the top of the pack internationally, and BC students fare well compared to students in other provinces across the country. A Conference Board of Canada report card also recently ranked Canada second in education out of seventeen peer nations. Furthermore, a 2010 Statistics Canada report finds that Canada is one of the few PISA countries that demonstrate both high performance and high equity; its overall scores are high while the gaps between the highest and lowest performing students are low, indicating a high level of equity in educational outcomes. Canada is clearly no slouch when it comes to delivering a solid education to its students. In the introduction to BC’s new Education Plan, Minister of Education George Abbott writes,

“We’re starting from a strong position: motivated and talented students, outstanding teachers, committed parents, skilled administrators and dedicated education partners. We are also fortunate to live in a province that values education and gives young people opportunities to excel.”

The question remains – why should anyone in British Columbia be looking to the US, the UK, or Sweden for educational models? Canada consistently out-ranks these countries in international measures of educational success. None of this is to say that the education system in BC is perfect, or that it cannot be improved - but claims of a “crisis” in BC education seem overblown, to say the very least.

A few days ago, this letter from Michigan activist Dan Quinn was posted on public school teacher Fred Klonsky's blog:

Dispatch from Michigan: Urgent. 'All hell is breaking out here.'

In it, Quinn describes the increasingly dire situation facing Michigan public school teachers. He writes,

As you already know, Michigan has been under assault all year long. It began with the passage of the Emergency Financial Manager package, continued with the taxing of pensions for retirees, and culminated in the defunding of almost a billion dollars of education funding from K-12 schools; in exchange for $1.8 billion in corporate tax cuts. . .

This summer we also saw the attacks intensify with a tenure 'reform' package that eliminated due process and just cause for dismissals, eliminated seniority, added a list of prohibited subjects of bargaining, and imposed an evaluation system that will require 50% of a teacher's evaluation be based on test scores. . . .

And last week, the Governor signed Senate Bill 7 which requires all education professionals and municipal employees to pay 20% of their health care, regardless of income or previous concessions to keep health care for members. Eventually, health care will cost some support professionals more than they take home in salary. Insane!

The attacks on public education intensified this week with yet another package of bills designed to erode democratically elected school boards, increase privatization, and destroy collective bargaining rights for workers.

The package of bills unleashed this week will do the following: allow for the privatization of all educators, removes the 150 charter school cap, allows community colleges to charter in Detroit, expands 'cyber' schools and seat time requirements for students, creates and defines 'conversion' charter schools (parents can petition for their school to be a charter school), expands the list of services that public schools can provide to parochial schools, and expands schools of choice.

In addition there are bills that were introduced this week which prohibit districts from deduction of union dues, and that create a third tier of retirement where new hires will only be allowed to be part of a defined contribution plan (eliminating pensions from employees hired after July 2011). . . .

And on Thursday, it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville plans to introduce something called 'Right to Teach' which is a right to work law aimed just at teachers.

A "right to teach" law would make teacher membership in the Michigan Education Association voluntary rather than mandatory. No bill has been proposed yet, but one is expected this fall.

Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville also supports pending legislation that would prohibit school districts from taking union dues out of teacher paychecks. The Michigan state House of Representatives passed a comparable bill today on a 55-53 vote; it now heads to the state Senate.

Richardville has commented on what he terms "Freedom to Teach" legislation on his website. Money going to union dues, he argues, "belongs to the teacher that earned it. It is up to them to contribute based on personal choice, not because the school district extracts it from paychecks and deposits it in the hands of the union bosses." He then goes on to acknowledge the sacrifices that teachers in Michigan have recently been forced to make - "salary reductions, concessions, paying more in health care costs, and in some cases, lay-offs." These changes (all of which have come at the hands of Republican legislators) embolden Richardville to claim that this new proposal will benefit teachers by making sure that they get to keep more of their salary. Furthermore, he argues that this rather unabashed attempt at union-busting "is truly a reform to help middle-class families keep more of their hard-earned money."

The Michigan Education Association has posted a response to Richardville's position on their website. MEA President Steven Cook states, "That any lawmaker would so willfully use their power to attack a group of people for exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and participation in the democratic process is unconscionable."

In his September 9th "Weekly Message," Cook outlines the raft of education reform legislation recently proposed by the state Senate, and responds to Richardville's stance on "right to teach."

A report on the first year of full day kindergarten in British Columbia, sponsored by the BC Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association, is now available online.

The lead researcher, Dr. Janet Mort, wrote that, "in my 40 years as an educator I have not witnessed a major education change so enthusiastically implemented by both teachers and administrators." The report describes the hurdles faced in implementing the program, the successes enjoyed, and makes recommendations for parents, teachers, administrators and school districts as full day kindergarten goes forward.

Some alarming news out of Michigan - state Republicans there are working on legislation that would privatize the hiring process for public school teachers.

According to Mother Jones, the legislation "would allow public school districts to hire teachers through private, for-profit companies. Privatizing the hiring process would presumably allow school districts to bypass compensation packages sought by teachers unions and let private companies compete for contracts with districts."

The Los Angeles Times has reported that over 700 anti-union bills, many similar to the new laws in Wisconsin and Ohio, have been introduced throughout the United States, and "nearly half of the states are considering legislation to limit public employees' collective bargaining rights."

The National Conference of State Legislatures has produced an online collective bargaining and labor union legislation database, which you can use to search for current collective bargaining or labor union-related bills by state or by topic.

On Tuesday, a bill that will restrict the collective bargaining rights of teachers in Indiana was approved by the state Senate and passed on to the desk of Governor Mitch Daniels, who is almost certain to sign it into law.

This is only the first part of Daniels' ambitious and aggressive school reform agenda, which also includes an expansion of charter schools, tax breaks for parents who send their children to private schools, and a merit pay plan for teachers.

The Tyee has joined the ranks of those wondering if Canada might be next in line for a Wisconsin-style attack on union rights.

A couple of Canadian newspapers have recently published articles pondering the prospect of the anti-union fight moving to Canada.

• Sachin Maharaj, "Teachers under the microscope; Battle of Wisconsin and the prospect of a right-wing surge in Ontario worries the province's teachers," Toronto Star, 23 Mar. 2011
• Adam Huras, "The clash in Wisconsin; Why one mid-western state is at the epicentre in a clash over public-sector rights - and the inescapable parallels to New Brunswick," New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, 22 Mar. 2011

Also, news that the Koch brothers, who have had much to do with funding and supporting Tea Party politics in the U.S., may be trying to influence politics in Alberta and Ontario:

• "Unions ask Stelmach to confirm he's not considering U.S.-style attack on the rights of public-sector workers," Canada Newswire, 23 Mar. 2011
• Emma Pullman, "Koch Brothers continue their Canadian takeover," Desmog Blog, 27 Mar. 2011

Indiana was shaping up to be the next Wisconsin, but word came today that the 39 Democratic representatives who fled the state five weeks ago will return to the Indiana House tonight. The Democrats left to prevent quorum in the state House, where Republicans were attempting to pass a right-to-work bill which would have allowed Indianans to refuse to join unions or pay union dues.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels eliminated collective bargaining rights for state workers on his first day of office in 2005. The right-to-work bill was yet another attack on public sector unions and would have made it very difficult for unions to organize in Indiana.

Though he supported the idea behind the bill, Governor Daniels had urged Republican legislators to drop the proposal because he was worried that it might derail the rest of his legislative agenda. Although the Republicans obliged, the Democrats remained out of the state, "saying that the Daniels agenda (including an aggressive school reform program that will grant private school vouchers to public school students across the state) needs to be changed before they'll come back to Indiana and let the legislative calendar roll on."

Daniels has faced harsh criticism from the anti-union right wing in Indiana, who believe that he has been too soft on the missing Democratic legislators and did not do enough to push the right-to-work legislation. The National Right to Work Committee, whose basic philosophy is that, "No one should be forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job," took out an ad in Indiana newspapers accusing Daniels and Indiana state House Speaker Brian Bosma of "selling out."

Democrats are characterizing their return to Indiana as a victorious one, even though they "obtained concessions that amount to far less than the death of 11 bills, which is what they originally sought." They did, however, force at least three Republican-backed measures to be significantly scaled back, including the elimination of the right-to-work bill, a concession on the school voucher bill, and changes to labour provisions in House Bill 1216, which has to do with government construction projects.

House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer said in a statement, "The timeout forced by Democrats gave Hoosiers an opportunity to examine the radical agenda being attempted in Indiana and to speak out. We've protected working people from a march to the minimum wage. We've protected collective bargaining rights for Hoosier workers and teachrs. We've softened the blow to public schools and prevented passage of a bill for the private takeover of public schools. This timeout gave millions of Hoosiers a real voice in their state government."

Meanwhile, in Alaska, Representative Carl Gatto, a Republican, has proposed a bill modeled on the anti-union legislation in Wisconsin, which would bar public employees from bargaining for anything but wages. State Representative Berta Gardner, a Democrat, alluded to the fight in Wisconsin when she quipped that "If the Democrats flee here, we'll have to go to Canada."

The controversy continues in Wisconsin:

On March 18th, a Wisconsin judge ruled that the tactics used by Republicans to pass the anti-union bill in the absence of the 14 Senate Democrats violated the state's open-meetings law, thereby temporarily putting a stop to the legislation. The judge also barred Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law in the Wisconsin State Journal, which is the official publication that informs the public of new laws. Typically, a law must be published in the Journal within ten days of its approval in the legislature, and it comes into full effect a day after this publication.

Now, in apparent defiance of this ruling, Republicans have had the bill published anyway, though through a different channel. On Friday, the Legislative Reference Bureau published the law "according to the LRB's statutory requirement to publish legislation within ten days of enactment." While the LRB has stated that their publication of the law should not actually put it into effect, state Republicans insist that the opposite is true.

At this point, there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not the law is actually in effect. The Secretary of the state's Department of Administration, Mike Huebsch, said in a written statement, "the Department of Administration will begin the process of implementing (the law) as we are required to do the day after a bill is lawfully published." Secretary of State La Follette, however, maintains that the bill must be published by his office in the Wisconsin State Journal in order to take effect, something that has yet to happen. Over the weekend, La Follette said, "At this point, we wait until Monday to see if the Supreme Court decides to do anything. We wait until Tuesday for the trial judge to hold a hearing, which is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Beyond that, I don't know." However, on Sunday Governor Walker's administration stopped collecting dues on behalf of state unions and began charging employees more for their health care and pensions.

There are currently three lawsuits pending against the legislation.

From a new article by Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy - in which he compares teachers' unions in the United States to teachers' unions in Ontario and northern Europe, in the context of the current attacks on teachers' unions in the U.S.:

"Teachers have already gotten the message that the public and policy makers do not trust them. The only talk now about increasing teachers' pay is to raise the pay of superior teachers, and that is in the context of firing poor-performing teachers. There is no talk of raising teachers' pay across the board. Indeed, it is clear to teachers that, if they lose their unions in this hour of state and municipal fiscal crises, they will have no protection at all in the face of enormous pressure on state and local officials to make massive cuts in teachers jobs, compensation and benefits.

Teachers know that now is when they need their unions more than ever. A determined widespread effort to weaken or destroy the only institution most teachers are counting on to protect them economically will confirm that message and force them into retirement or into the bunker where they will hunker down, and wait in brooding resentment for a change in the political weather.

...

Even if one has concluded that the current crop of teachers is generally of poor quality and must go - a conclusion I have heard no one utter - one would still have to ask where, exactly, a new crop of superior teachers is supposed to come from. The nation is doing nothing to recruit and train teachers on the needed scale who could lay any claim to be superior in any way to those already teaching. So if the current policy consists in the main of forcing the unions to the wall, that is a plicy that is almost certain to lead to no improvement in the qualifications of teachers as well as a broad decline in the morale of the teachers we already have. In fact, further eroding the morale of our current teaching workforce will prove a very effective deterrent to recruiting capable young people to teach in our schools."

(Marc Tucker, "Teachers, Their Unions and the American Education Reform Agenda," NCEE, March 2011)

In Wisconsin this morning, Governor Scott Walker signed his controversial anti-union bill into law. He also rescinded the layoff notices sent late last week, maintaining the pretense that the bill was necessary for fiscal reasons. In a statement released today, Walker said that the new legislation "will help put Wisconsin on a path to fiscal sustainability."

The story is not over yet - recall efforts will most likely be launched against a number of Republican senators and against Walker, once he is eligible for recall next year. Court cases are also a possibility, as many believe aspects of the Republican's legislative maneuvering was illegal.

If there is a silver lining to all of this, it is that the labour movement in the U.S. has been galvanized, and support for public unions may have increased since the Wisconsin protests started a few weeks ago. The Democratic Party in Wisconsin is also newly energized - in the 24 hours after the State Assembly voted for Walker's bill, the state party received $360,000 in contributions and welcomed streams of volunteers to help collect signatures for recall bids.