X-Envelope-to: edpolyan@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: EDPOL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:03:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         LES MCLEAN <3673_LDM@UTOROISE.BITNET>
Subject:      forbidding inequalities

As part of the debate on Kozol's Savage Inequalities, Bennett Copeland
(responding to Gene Glass) wrote, "...why not simply forbid unequal schools
from existing?"  Why not indeed.  The relevant policy is called
"equalization", and it is pervasive in Canada.  A formula was worked out in
the early 60s so that every local authority (school board, school district,
whatever you call them) receives exactly the same amount per pupil--part
from property taxes and the rest from the provincial government.  Local
authorities with very little property tax income (mostly rural districts)
get a large proportion from the province and those with a lot (metropolitan
Toronto, for example) get a small proportion.  There are still schools
attended by mostly students from rich families and schools attended by
students from poor families, but the schools have the same budget.  Parents
can and do top up the equipment and supplies lines, but it seems to make
little difference.  There are interesting provincial differences on the
margins, but this margin is too small to contain them.  One example: the
provincial government in British Columbia felt it necessary to take over
the Vancouver local authority because they then had the power to spend
above the provincial per capita amount if they raised the money locally.
The board was doing just that (faced with large immigration and other inner
city problems) and the taxpayers were complaining--to the Province, who has
overall responsibility, after all.  Vancouver was forced into line.
  I does cost money.  Canada spends more on education per capita than any
other of the G7 countries (I believe--correct me if I am wrong, Benji) and
one often hears laments that we get too little for it (being always average
in the international horseraces), but even in these tough times we do not
hear talk of changing the policy.  Cut the amount per pupil, perhaps, (not
heard often), but keep the equalization.  There have been special grants
that were not equal, for computers and the like, but the poor districts
have got more, not less.
   So has this policy eliminated inequalities?  Financial inequalities,
yes, social inequalities, no.  You wouldn't believe me if I told you
otherwise--not the discerning participants in the well reviewed EDPOLYAN.
It is still difficult to get teachers to stay in poor districts, and there
are more highly motivated, well trained teachers in the rich districts.
Still, the disparities are muted by a policy of financial equalization.
When a prosperous civilized society does not have an equalization policy,
it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the decision makers wish to
preserve the inequalities.  When the inequalities become "savage", it is
not surprising to find prophets going about the land denouncing them.
There is historical precedent.  If the prophet gets $5K per denunciation,
then this is a society that could afford equalization for its schools.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Les McLean                         adminlm@oise.on.ca (internet)
                                   adminlm@utoroise.bitnet
Measurement, Evaluation and              (416) 923-6641
   Computer Applications                             -^-
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education         __\ /__
252 Bloor Street West                             <__   __>
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA           M5S 1V6            |
__________________________________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU