Thursday, May 27, 2010

Funding the Whore of Babylon

Some people are not going to like me for this one, but… well, what else is new?

There was an article in the online edition of the Globe and Mail that caught my eye. It hit home for many reasons, some of them personal. Apparently, many schoolteachers are lying about their faith in order to get coveted teaching positions in the Catholic school board.

It strikes a personal chord with me because I was for a very short while employed by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA), the union which represents the province’s Catholic schoolteachers. I didn’t have to pass any religious tests there, but it was kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” environment. I still feel dirty remembering my time there.

Incidentally, I worked in OECTA’s government relations department, so I gained some valuable insight into how lobbying works. The Catholic school lobby in Ontario is well-funded and has the ears of literally every sitting Ontario MPP, regardless of party. Here’s an anecdote: one of these political parties (alright, it was the NDP) was having a contest to choose a new party leader. One of the candidates made the mistake of musing aloud about revisiting the issue of separate school funding. Perhaps he thought it would make a great wedge issue for his campaign. In any case, he brought down upon himself the full wrath of the Catholic lobby, including the organization for which I worked. The poor fellow quickly backtracked, and the idea has never again been uttered aloud in the province’s halls of power.

Leaving my personal experiences aside, there is so much wrong with this state of affairs, that I don’t know where to begin deconstructing it. First, a little background: if you happen not to be from Ontario, this province is unusual in Canada in having a publicly-funded Catholic school system, a fact that will probably cause you to scratch your head in wonderment and disbelief, and rightly so. There is some complicated legal history behind this arrangement, but I cannot think of any still-relevant facts that could morally justify it.

The Catholic lobby, the Catholic teachers’ union, and the gutless politicians in their pockets repeat endlessly that separate school funding (a euphemism, since no other religious or cultural group is allowed a taste of this particular plum) is “constitutionally protected”. However, there are at least three replies to this canard. First, the province itself does not have a written constitution such as the separate US states have, at least not in the sense of a written legal instrument that cannot effectively be repealed by regular procedural means. So if there’s a constitutional guarantee, it is not a provincially-based one.

Second, according to my non-specialist reading of s.93 of the Constitution Act (also known as the British North America Act) of 1867, the right of Catholic schools to exist is granted, but it says nothing about the public funding of those schools. The latter is simply not in the text. I suppose some clever judges have read it into the Act, but they could not have read it from the Act.

Third, other provinces have scrapped their separate school funding systems, examples being Quebec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba. Interestingly, Manitoba did it unilaterally, without jumping through the hoops of constitutional amendment. They simply went ahead, and Parliament failed to challenge it ― as is its prerogative. The legal background to separate school funding is too convoluted to present here in any detail. However, for a good overview, I encourage interested readers to peruse the website run by the group “Education Equality in Ontario”. Incidentally, this was one of several information sources run by concerned citizens that I was tasked with monitoring during my time at OECTA. Sadly, the site seems to have become moribund.

Simply stated, it is high time we weaned the Catholic Church from the public teat. If they wish to have their own education system, let them fund it from the heaps of treasure they’ve mercilessly piled up from the sweat, blood, and bones of generations of labouring poor.

(As an aside, given the persistent stream of ugly little revelations in the news, we might like to think twice before letting the Catholic Church anywhere near children. Kind of like shutting up the fox in the henhouse, no?)

However, there is more wrong with this story than just the public funding issue, which to me is enraging enough. It also begs the following question: why are our teaching colleges (also publicly-subsidized) producing so many more teachers than the education system can consume? This certainly does not seem like an efficient expenditure of funds. It was gratifying at least to read in the article that the province is planning to eliminate about a thousand places in teaching colleges. My mind boggles at that number: Ontario is turning out a thousand surplus teachers each year!

There is, however, a simple explanation for so many people wishing to attend teaching colleges: many people want to be teachers, and with good reason. Getting a full time teaching position has become a winning lottery ticket. The positions are few, but if you get one, you’re set for life. The salaries are absurd, the pensions and benefits are generous, and the fact is, the job is really not that difficult if you happen to have the knack for it (which too many working teachers do not). Sure, I personally know teachers who have tried to convince me that the work they do is much harder and more important than anyone else’s work, but I remain unconvinced. Sure, teachers are necessary (so are garbage collectors) and teaching has its quantum of stress, but what job doesn’t? One thing most jobs don’t have is a quarter of every year off, paid. I believe there are two prominent causes for this over-remuneration of teachers.

First, they are over-professionalized. There was a time when anyone with half a brain and a vocational calling could teach. Now it seems that the brain part is optional while much more is required in terms of education. Brains and education do not always – or even usually – go together. Is more professionalization a good thing here? Well, to use the Scriptural expression, “Ye shall know it by its fruits.” Despite the increased time and money it now takes to produce a “qualified” teacher, the resulting quality of education of their students continues to be dismal, to put it mildly. I know, because as a university instructor, I had to deal with the end results of the primary and secondary education systems, and it wasn’t pretty. It seems to me that, educationally-speaking, less is more here.

Second, along with over-professionalization, there is the problem of over-unionization. We constantly hear the refrain that there are too many students per teacher, that class sizes are too large. And yet at the same time, we have too many qualified teachers without positions. If there was some way we could hold the line on wages, or reduce them, I’m sure that many of those unemployed teachers would be more than happy to take one of the positions that could be created as a result. Doubtless, there are many who actually do see teaching as a calling and are not just in it for the money. As a matter of fact, reducing wages might even improve the overall quality of the profession, by weeding out those who are just in it for the money. Of course, the teachers’ unions will not have any talk of reducing wages.

One question remains unanswered: If both the Catholic and the regular public systems are funded from the same public source, why is it that the former is hiring while the latter is not? Well, first of all, the article does not necessarily say this is the case. But it does seem to be implied. If it is, I suspect this is because the Catholic system effectively has an additional source of funding that the public system does not (i.e. the Church). Anecdotally, I’ve known several parents who are not Catholic but who have enrolled their children in Catholic schools because of the perception that the quality of education is better. I admit I don’t know if or why this is the case. I don’t have children, and I have no first-hand experience of Catholic schools. I do know that as a teenager, if you wanted to be on the swimming team, you had to go to the local Catholic high school and use their pool. Our public high school didn’t have such frills, although we did have three times the number of students.

It is a strange irony, is it not? A situation is developing in which Catholic schools (styled "separate" schools in our political jargon) are increasingly staffed by teachers pretending to be Catholic, who are teaching students pretending to be Catholic.

There are too few teaching positions to go around. This is caused by the combination of over-professionalization and over-unionization. This, together with an archaic and unjust funding system has resulted in a sad state of affairs in which people are forced to lie about their religious faith (reminiscent of the bad old days of the Test Acts) in order to gain employment in their chosen field ― and to send their children to decent schools.

Please do not accuse me of being anti-teacher. I’m not. I blame the system and its perverse incentives more than I blame teachers. Thus, I’d like to end this post by dedicating it to those very good teachers I’ve had, the ones who have really made a difference in my life. I would especially like to thank Mr. Csoli, my fifth grade teacher, Miss McBride, my high school Latin teacher, and Mr. Dearing, my high school Economics teacher.

6 comments:

  1. I hesitate to compare you to Margaret Wente, but... You make the same argument about teachers' salaries that she makes about university professors' salaries. Working for the staff side of a university I can tell you that the salaries of the non-teaching staff are no less munificent than those on the teaching side and the benefits, especially sick benefits, are crazy.

    And I have also read report after report that suggests that the number of staff employed by schoolboards in Canada that DO NOT teach is insane compared to your average European school system.

    I don't know whether teachers are overpaid or not; it's not a job I'd care to do. But it seems to me that in an educational institution you'd want to cut pretty much anything else before you'd cut the teachers' salaries: they're the whole point of the place! For some reason it's all to easy to beat on teachers/professors as the emblem of institutional rot, but there are huge management failures elsewhere that I'm afraid most reporters are simply too lazy to look at in any serious way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha! Margaret Wente! Has it come to that!? Seriously though, I agree with almost everything you say, except for cutting teachers' salaries last. My argument there was that if we could create more teaching positions (i.e. more teachers teaching fewer kids) by spreading that money across more people, then why not? I'd be interested in your reaction to my corollary argument, which was that paying teachers somewhat less might paradoxically attract better quality people (at least up to some point).

    Also, working in faculty relations, although I haven't read her diatribes, I can tell you that from what you've said, Margaret Wente is correct: tenured faculty in most cases do make too much money. Which is why universities are shifting more of the teaching burden to contract faculty.

    I agree that there's plenty of fat to cut in administration too, especially at the top. My impression from the inside is that, at least at the university level, this is already happening: more positions are contract. Hell, most of the Dean's office I work in seems to be staffed by temps (no holidays, no benefits, hourly wage that is marginally above the minimum). Every full time person who quits or retires is replaced by a temp or a contract employee -- if they're replaced at all. There must be some pretty hefty savings there. (Interestingly, this is happening in a heavily unionized environment, which leads one to suspect that the unions are either powerless - not likely from my experience dealing with them -, or else tacitly approve of this, so long as they get their cut. After all, the TEMPS are unionized too! Imagine it, the union gets paid protection money from people it has no intention of protecting, and both parties know this! What a racket!)

    Of course, if you break through to the upper tier, the rewards are princely, and that's where the real fat is.

    Please don't take me as Mike Harris lite. Teachers are necessary. But the system is riddled with rent-seeking and parasitism for which some are more guilty than others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Imagine it, the union gets paid protection money from people it has no intention of protecting, and both parties know this! What a racket!"

    I think that that is pretty much exactly what is happening...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm also no expert on the Constitution Act, but I'm pretty sure it is indeed a false impediment here. Constitutional amendments that only affect one province don't need to go through any of the onerous amending formulae — just the expressed wish of the province and what is pretty much a rubber stamp by the feds. This is the route that Newfoundland went when they got rid of their catholic system.

    And if I recall correctly, the impetus there was a referendum. Which would be nice here as well, as I think a clear majority of the population in Ontario would be pleased to be rid of the Catholic school system. But as you have said, it's politically toxic, for all of the parties, to even mention separate schools.

    In the longer run, I'm betting that demography will be the force to make the change. In twenty years or so, the plain fact of having two half-empty schools beside each other, all over the province, is going to be too much for most people to bear. Especially when added to the ethnographic shifts already underway here. Immigrants will be the ones who save us here — so long as we can convince them that one school system for all is better than "separate" systems for any group that wants one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you make en excellent point about demography, MFS.

    It is interesting that school closures was one of the big issues OECTA was lobbying, despite all objective data clearly showing that many of the proposed closings were of schools that were simply non-viable (e.g. they were located in the equivalent of pocket boroughs, rural areas of declining or aging population).

    Of course, there were other areas (mostly urban) that had too few schools, so there was a problem of distribution too.

    I'd be interested to know your take on John Tory's separate school funding fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another excellent posting, Jamie. Well done.

    I went to Catholic schools in Quebec, but was allowed to attend public schools when I moved here. Being beaten by nuns probably shaped me, but luckily it was time for other forces to shape me. (Also, I don't know of many priests who are involved in academics in either Quebec or Ontario. Friends of mine who went to Catholic schools in Toronto never seemed to have any day-to-day involvement with priests, at least. And I never saw any in Quebec, only nuns.) Sadly, I think the public schools in Scarborough I attended were worse than what I had experienced previously. This I will attribute to what you discussed here, the lazy and entitled manner of the tenured teacher.

    One final note: a friend of mine who emigrated here from Chile in the nineties and who displayed athletic ability was recruited to attend a Catholic high school in the West End. He tells me that the school was so poorly run that the Separate School board took the unusual step of closing it down a few years ago. Apparently, students like him were allowed to skip all classes as long as they turned out for athletics. To this day, he regrets the lost opportunity to advance his skills in English and other academic fields.

    ReplyDelete