Bill 160 Essay, Research Paper
The Honourable David Johnson introduced Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act during the first Session of the 36th Parliament of the Province of Ontario. Bill 160 was originally written as “an act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability and make other improvements consistent with the Government’s education quality agenda, including improving student achievement and regulated class size”. The negative effects of Bill 160 were displayed using several different political concepts. These include historical background, power, politics, authority, influence, legitimacy, coercion and obligation.
Bill 160 was introduced in late 1997. The teacher’s strike occurred in October and lasted for two weeks. Despite province wide protest from many, the bill was passed in December 1997. With advertising, the government tried to make the teachers look greedy and selfish. Instead, this helped the teachers gain support from parents and the community. Previously, the government had an established Education Act. Bob Rae’s New Democratic Party government made huge cuts in education funding and in teacher’s salaries.
Bill 160 was written to allow the Ministry and Cabinet to intervene and control every aspect of the school boards. It also enables the suspension of trustees who do not support their commands. This bill creates centralized power and decentralized blame. Some people see it as an unprecedented power grab. The school boards and trustees are still accountable, but their ability to take action on issues has been completely taken away. Whenever changes are needed, the Ministry can make them through regulation. No legislations will be needed; therefore no consultations of any kind are required. Neither the public nor the members of Provincial Parliament have any say in what goes on. Bill 160 makes school councils mandatory, but provides them with no effective role or support. As a former student representative in the Roman Catholic school board, I felt our influence on our own education would be diminished. If there were any issues that arose with the curriculum, students would have to go to Toronto to complain. We would no longer be able to go to the local school board, which was amalgamated because of Bill 160. With the passing of the bill, seventy new school boards to be created, including one massive school board covering all of Metropolitan Toronto.
The Minister of Finance influences all funding decisions. Local communities have no say in where the money goes. Many of the programs and services people enjoy in their communities will be cut because the money will be spent elsewhere. As a result, many extra-curricular activities have been cut because there simply is no money, and many teachers are unwilling to devote their spare time anymore. We have no idea where the school budget money is going because, “the Ministry of Education & Training has regularly promised their funding allocation model for months. Its purpose is to give financial detail with respect to budget dollars available for an amalgamated school board system. It’s still not ready” (Centralization).
The main problem associated with Bill 160 is the complete authority of the provincial government. Authority is a form of power applied when people respect the source of the command. The school board now has the job of cutting wages, benefits and teacher preparation time. When the teachers were refusing to work, Ontario Premier Mike Harris went to the courts to request a back to work order because the teachers had been on strike for two weeks. The courts denied his request because they thought workers would refuse to obey. The union leaders were in control of the unions and they had to dissolve the strike. In essence, their leaders destroyed their fight.
Bill 160 was created to help reduce spending. Mike Harris was under the obligation to cut the budget. In an interview, he said,
“There is more than enough money in the system: the problem lies in the
fact that that it is not spent to improve the quality of classroom education.
Many other provinces spending significantly fewer dollars are getting
better results: their kids are learning more” (Macleans).
When the bill was passed, it allowed some school positions currently held by teachers to be taken by other qualified professionals. Librarians no longer needed to have graduated from Teacher’s College in order to hold the position. This reduced spending because their salary was less than that of a teacher. In the Progressive Conservative party platform, they declared they would cut the education budget, limit the classroom sizes, cut down on teacher preparation time, and allow uncertified teachers to teach children and create standardized testing and report cards. The Conservatives said they were going to cut $667 million dollars from education. They also contradicted themselves by saying there was no price for education: there was no limit. The government has repeatedly said we do not need this much money to go towards our education. We are constantly told how other provinces do just as well, if not better, and they have less funding than Ontario. But the government neglects to mention that Ontario has more students than any other province. Also, Ontario has the highest number of students who have English as a second language; so naturally, those students will not do as well on standardized testing (Education Crisis 2). The government has the responsibility to set the classroom size as they see fit. But smaller classes mean more classes, and this inevitably means more money. This also contradicts the idea of cutting the budget. Teacher preparation time is anytime during the school day where the teachers are not directly teaching the students. It may involve creating lesson plans, marking papers, assisting students and conversing with parents. The people who have faced the most working changes by this new legislation are high school teachers. Their preparation time has been severely cut and they have been forced to teach an additional period each day. Bill 160 states that specialists will teach some subjects. It does not detail which subjects will be taught, nor does it say what kind of teaching experience these specialists will require. The government created a standard report card to be used in all schools and the standardized testing was generated for students in grades three, six and eleven.
Coercion played a major role in the events leading up to the passing of Bill 160. It occurs when people do something because they fear the consequences. It can be a powerful tool, but no one can be completely dependent on it. An example of coercion is a strike. A strike is defined as refusing to work due to unfair working conditions and contract issues. Strikes are essentially illegal and the government has always reminded the public of this fact, however,
“The government has not stated that Bill 160 goes against the very principles of democracy. This is because the government has passed a bill that will give the cabinet the power to do anything to the education system without any discussion, debate, consultation, or reason. In effect, Bill 160 establishes a dictatorship over education in Ontario” (Education Crisis 2).
In situations such as this, it is imperative to break the law in order to have your voice heard. These people are standing up for their beliefs and for that, they should not be condemned. They are compelled to do what they believe is right because there only alternative is to do something they do not agree with