Why school boards should follow Edmonton's lead: Allowing parents more choice is a welcome change from the “one size fits all” model imposed on neighbourhoods by public school boards
Published in the Globe and Mail
Thurs. April 1, 2010.
This article makes the claim that, “If Toronto and other urban school boards follow Edmonton's lead, Canadians could see a revolution take place in the quality of education provided to our children.” Although there are many reasons to support, or not support decentralization and school choice in Canada, the body of evidence does not support the view that either decentralization or school choice alone will produce significant improvements in student outcomes.
Sincerely,
· Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
· Lorna Earl
· Sue Ferguson, Coordinator, The Learning Consortium, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education
· Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Sue Herbert, former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education
· Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Penny Milton, CEO Canadian Education Association
· Charles E. Pascal, Professor, University of Toronto, Former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education
· Charles Ungerleider, Professor, Sociology of Education, The University of British Columbia
Please see the following on the issue of Decentralization:
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy , 12(3), 325-346.
Simkins, Tim. (1993). The consequences of school-based management in England and Wales: a review of some evidence from an economic perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Thomas, H., & Martin, J.(1996). Managing resources for school improvement: Creating a cost-effective school. London: Routledge.
Piercey, D.(2010). Unintended consequences of cost recovery. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6). 46-49.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Education reform: School-based management results in changes in instruction and budgeting (Publication No.GAO/HEHS-94-135 School-Based Management). Retrieved April 2010, from http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152372.pdf
Please see the following for on School Choice:
Fuller, B., Elmore, R., and Orfield, G. (eds.). (1996). Who chooses, who loses? New York: Teachers College Press.
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). Market Forces and Standards in Education: A Preliminary Consideration. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23(1), 5-18.
Lubienski, Chris. (2001). The relationship of competition and choice to innovation in education markets: A review of research on four cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved April 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/14/ec.pdf
Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and Choice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
