Education and auto-insurance

‘Why should education be any different than auto-insurance?’ This was the question posed to teacher leaders at a forum in Edmondton, Canada, last week. The question was put by Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by some major corporations. Cowley’s argument was that the State should require all auto owners to have auto-insurance, but should not be the provider. By analogy, while the State should require that education be compulsory for all children, there was no reason, he suggested, why the State should be the provider. Cowley argued for a diversity of providers, competing with each other, thereby, he said, raising the overall quality of education.

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation had invited Cowley to its President’s Forum, held prior to the Annual General Meeting, precisely in order to hear the arguments being used to attack the concept of public education as we know it. His presentation was juxtaposed with an analysis of the neo-conservative agenda by Bruce Campbell, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. While the Cowley presentation certainly succeeded in getting the adrenalin flowing for the participants, the point was that it reflected views more widespread than we would like to think in many countries, not least in the United States and in Europe. There are many who agree that education is important, but who also hold that provision should come more from the private sector. Somehow, it is felt, the private sector will put in the resources. This generally turns out to be wishful thinking, so the next level of argument is that competition should be introduced into the public sector in order to encourage efficiency. Hence the movement for Charter schools in the USA.

Along with increased competition come league tables, comparisons within and between countries, and the push for performance pay. The merit, if it can be called that, of the Cowley presentation was that it confronted teacher union leaders with the need to restate the case for public education. Nothing can be taken for granted. Nor is it sufficient to bemoan or deride the neo-liberal arguments. They must be addressed.

In the 21st century, the case for quality public education for all is as powerful as it ever was. At the Forum, it was put by CTF Secretary General Calvin Fraser under the heading ‘What should be the promise of public education?’ Calvin described the early history of public education in Canada and the notion of ‘the common school’, which became the basis for community development, national progress, and individual success in a country of immigration and great natural and human diversity. This is a history that can be repeated in every other industrialized country today. It is a basis for citizenship and participation in democracies. Why then, do we witness this movement to move away from public education, even to denigrate it, and to search around for something else to take its place?

We can debate the reasons for this shift in thinking among significant segments of opinion. That it is ideological in nature is certain. But what is the basis for applying this particular ideology, that of the market and competition, so persistently to education? My own conviction is that it is all a matter of interest. The rationale for pursuing policies that deepen economic inequality is very much the same as the rationale for policies that increase rather than diminish educational inequality. In both cases, the rationale is dictated by short-term particular interests, while the longer term common interest is neglected.

It is also certain that this continuing ideological pressure on the concept of public education has consequences for public funding. It leads naturally to starving public education of badly needed resources. There is pressure to ‘do more with less’. A vicious circle is set up, of diminishing resources and of more reasons to criticize public schools – leading to proposals for alternative forms of provision. This vicious circle has to be broken. We have to build, or in some cases rebuild, a consensus in political discourse that public education is the foundation for national, community and individual progress. To achieve that consensus, we have to build, or rebuild confidence in the quality of public education.

Rebuilding the consensus of public support for quality public education is eminently do-able, for there remains a strong reservoir of public support. But it will not just happen by itself. It will take the mobilization of education unions and their members, actively engaging with other actors of civil society which share our values. This must be the basis for our advocacy whether at the G20, the international institutions, or with each national or local government.
Tough political choices on public funding lie ahead. In this context, talk of other means of educational provision, of alternatives to public provision, is dangerous. The auto-insurance analogy is superficial but seductive. It would be unwise to under-rate it. We have articulated in our own circles the case for education as a public good, not a commodity. Our challenge is to take that case convincingly and credibly to wider communities, and to do so with a clear political agenda.

The G20 “shrinking agenda”: how the Canadian host gutted the G20 of substance

Unfortunately, the Toronto G20 met our expectations – which were very low! On the Monday before-hand, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy told the ITUC Congress in Vancouver that the summit had a “shrinking agenda”. Before that, on Friday 18 June, I participated on behalf of Global Union Federations in a consultation with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, host for the G8 and G20 “twin summits”. Although Global Unions made points on defence of the public sector in the face of “exit strategies”, we had few illusions about Mr Harper’s interest – or lack thereof – in education.

When you read the brief Leaders’ Declaration, you have to wonder how the Canadian government justified the expense to Canadian taxpayers. The cost was widely reported in local media as running up to $1.3 billion, with security costs 8 times those of the previous G20 in Pittsburgh. $1.3 billion would go a way towards closing the financing gap for Education for All! But EFA is not mentioned in the G20 Declaration. Instead it is referenced in an annex to the G8 Declaration on accountability for MDG commitments. The G20 Declaration gives a one-line mention in another annex to “appreciation” for the work of ILO and OECD on a training strategy (http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1292&theme=ei&country=canada).

It was not for want of trying. EI affiliates in Canada, the CTF and FPUQ, wrote excellent letters to their Prime Minister, while CTF held a well-attended press conference, and achieved good media coverage, especially e-media. The Presidents of US affiliates NEA and AFT wrote a formidably well-argued joint letter to President Obama, backed up by a personal note from the AFL-CIO President to the US “Sherpa” (top official) for the summits. EI key messages were included in the Global Unions’ Statement to the G8 and G20. And EI participated on behalf of Global Unions in the consultation with the host Prime Minister.

That consultation was itself indicative of the approach of the host government. Flanked by two of his Ministers, for Labour and Human Resources and Skills, as well as his “Sherpa”, Stephen Harper said he would just “listen” to the trade union presentations. Thanks to well-framed questions put to him by ITUC’s Guy Ryder, Harper was drawn into a more interactive exchange with the delegation than he probably intended. He was articulate and politically astute. Neither of the Ministers said a word. While we felt that getting Harper to engage in the exchange was a small “plus”, at the end of the day it did not change much. It was to be contrasted with the convening, on the eve of the G8, of a B-20 summit of business leaders, at the invitation of the Canadian PM, and a commitment by the G8 to finance with public funds worthwhile business initiatives!

Nevertheless, as labour leaders we were clearly the object of a charm offensive by this right-wing politician. Harper has run a minority government for 4 years. In the Toronto Star the next morning I read an article on his strategy to outflank the left by supporting expansion of the publicly-run Canada Pension Plan. The article quotes CLC chief Ken Georgetti as lavishing praise on the decision, stating that the Conservatives have “felt the heartbeat of Canada on this one”. (Toronto Star, Sat June 19, 2010).

This all seemed to be consistent with what I observed in the consultation. An astute politician moves from his core base, in order to build support in the centre and create conditions for governing with a majority rather than a minority. The Toronto Star columnist notes, however, that ‘Harper’s strategy with popular social programs is not to eliminate them but to transform them over time into forms that he and his political base find more ideologically amenable’.

Harper proposed a photo with all of us in front of the G20 flags, with Ken beside him. It was rather obvious that we served mainly as a backdrop for the playing out of some domestic Canadian politics. Meanwhile, I thought of all our members, in the G20 countries and in 160 other countries, and the millions of children in those countries, who face education budget cuts and see the prospect of achieving Education for All recede over the horizon!

We knew that for the Canadian G8 and G20 summits, our task was to put down “markers”. This we did. The strong EI delegation at the ITUC Congress in Vancouver, backed by the many EI and PSI delegates in national delegations, succeeded in getting the ITUC to adopt a 7th priority on Defence of the Public Sector and Education and Health for All.

Our work to get EFA and Teachers on the G20 agenda must continue through the upcoming UN Summits and the G20 in Seoul, Korea, in November. By the time the G20 convenes again in France in June 2011, just before the EI World Congress in July, we want to see concrete proposals in place. Ambitious, hugely ambitious. But necessary!