Education policies not suited to rural Ontario

In recent years, on the education front, we have seen a so-called ‘hard cap’ on class sizes, a tax increase for parents who send their children to faith-based schools, and a law to take away driver’s licenses from drop-outs.

During the 2003 election, Premier McGuinty promised to place a 20 student hard-cap limit on primary class-sizes. As of yet, there are still many primary classes that far exceed this promised cap. Unfortunately, a ‘hard cap’ on class sizes looks better on paper than in practice. In order to cap class-sizes, schools must increase the total number of primary classes – which often means sending children to portables. Worse yet, the ‘hard cap’ often results in increased class-sizes for the higher grades, as teachers are in limited supply.

This is especially worrisome in rural Ontario, where students and parents are suffering from the broken promise to revise the funding formula. Despite the current government’s promise to revisit education funding, a group called ‘People for Education’ says “the current funding formula is not serving the needs of school boards, schools or students.”

The former government was committed to implementing the Rozanski Report – which would have solved the glitches associated with the funding formula.

Under the previous government, parents who send their children to faith-based schools were allowed to claim a portion of the tuition on their income taxes. This helped to ensure that children could get an education, especially if their parents would not otherwise send them to a public school. The McGuinty government campaigned on a promise of raising taxes for parents who send their children to faith-based schools.

When the McGuinty government eliminated the tax break for those families sending their children to faith-based schools, it did so retroactively – surprising families that had already paid tuition costs. Rather than forcing students into the public system, this approach has made education unaffordable for many families – leaving their children out of the classroom altogether.

Few would dispute the need for young people to finish high school, and if possible, pursue post-secondary education. The question facing policy-makers is how to best ensure that young people stay in school.

The McGuinty government believes that punishment is the best way to keep young people in school. Under its scheme, if a student stops going to school prior to turning 18, that student could lose driving privileges in the province of Ontario.

Unfortunately, this policy is short-sighted. In rural and small town Ontario, driving is the only available transportation option. Without a license, it is not possible to get to work, go to the store, or even work on the farm. In contrast, the punishment for city-kids is minimal, as they can take the subway, the streetcar, or the bus.

Rural communities face a brick wall when it comes to the provincial government’s unwillingness to recognize the differences between rural and urban areas. This is especially true in education.

The McGuinty government has made a habit of proposing legislation without considering the practical implications.

Whether it is a ‘hard cap’ on class sizes, a tax-hike for parents who send their children to faith-based schools, or taking driver’s licenses away from young people, we see a worrisome trend. At first glance, government might get positive headlines, but for rural Ontario, these policies simply do not work.