Global Change and Educational Reform in Ontario and Canada

Author(s): Brian O'Sullivan

Source: Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, Vol. 24, No. 3
(Summer, 1999), pp. 311-325
Published by: Canadian Society for the Study of Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585878
Accessed: 03/12/2010 00:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=csse.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Canadian Society for the Study of Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation.

http://www.jstor.org
GlobalChangeandEducationalReform
in Ontarioand Canada
Brian O'Sullivan
fatherbressanicatholichighschool

Canadian educationhasbeenresponding to globalchangeformanydecades.Overthelast

30 years,two globalparadigms havedominateddebatesabouteducationin Ontarioand
in Canada.The firstparadigm,globaleconomiccompetitiveness, maintainsthatknowl-
edge has becomethe competitiveadvantageof industrial nationsin the globaleconomy
andthatutilitarian
principlesshouldguideoureducational reforms.Thesecondparadigm,
global interdependence, holds thatwe shouldacknowledgeour interdependent global
needsandresponsibilities andthatthisshouldguideoureducational reforms.I arguethat
to preparestudentsfor the globalchallengesof thenew century,excellencein education
shouldbe definedas meetingthe requirements of bothparadigmsand as includingthe
studyof all majorglobalchange-economic andtechnological -as well as the studyof
worldcultures,politics,ecology,andhumanitarian issues.

Depuisles 30 dernieresannees,deuxparadigmes dominentles debatssurl'educationen

Ontarioet dansl'ensembledu Canada.Le premierparadigme,la mondialisation de la
competitiviteeconomique,maintientquela connaissance est devenuel'avantageconcur-
rentieldes pays industrialises
dansl'economiemondialeet que des principesutilitaires
devraientguiderles reformesen education.Le secondparadigme,l'interddpendance a
l'echelle mondiale,soutientque nous devrionsreconnaitrel'interdependance de nos
besoinset de nos responsabilites
a l'echellemondialeet quec'est ce principequi devrait
guiderles reformesen 6ducation.L'auteuravancepoursa partque pourpr6parerles
el6ves aux d6fis mondiauxdu nouveausi6cle, l'excellenceen 6ducationdevraitetre
definieen fonctiondes exigencesdes deux paradigmes,ce qui supposel'6tudedes
changements 6conomiqueset technologiques a l'6chellemondialeainsique l'6tudedes
diversescultures,de la politique,de l'ecologieet des questionshumanitaires.

In some respects Canadianeducationhas been respondingto global change for

more than a century.In recent times, two global paradigmshave influenced the
course of educational reforms in Ontarioand Canada.The first maintains that
knowledge has become the competitiveasset and advantageof industrialnations
in the global economy and that a core curriculumof subjects such as math,
science, technology, and language proficiencyshould be at the centre of educa-
tional reforms. This paradigmof global economic competitiveness asserts that
knowledge is a commodity and that Canadianshave nationalintereststo protect
in a common global future. In contrast, the second paradigm argues that we
should acknowledge our interdependentglobal needs and responsibilities and
that this is what should guide educational goals and reforms. This paradigm

311 CANADIANJOURNALOF EDUCATION

24, 3 (1999): 311-325
312 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

acknowledges the realities of technology and the global economy but goes
further,also valuing study of both the interdependenceof global politics, culture,
and ecology and the ethical issues we must confront in our common global
future.These two conflictingparadigmsfor education,global economic competi-
tiveness and global interdependence,have dominated educational debate in
Ontarioand in Canada,especially in the last 30 years.
The paradigmof global economic competitivenessprevailedin the last decade
of the 20th century,but it was just as pervasive at the beginning of that century.
In 1907, the CanadianManufacturers'Association declared,"Thecompetitionof
the world has become so strong that we cannot afford to fall behind in the race
for efficiency. . ... Technical education must come ... we must educate our
people towards efficiency" (p. 844). This fear of falling behind in the global
economy continued to preoccupy Canadiansfor the rest of the century. After
World War II, educational reforms were justified as essential to maintaining
Canada'sposition as a front-rankdefenderof the free world, and, in the case of
the Robartsreorganizationof educationin Ontarioof 1962, as a way to meet the
complex educational requirementsof a highly industrializedsociety (Fleming,
1972).
The second paradigm,educationaboutglobal interdependence,emergedat the
end of the 1960s with the convergence of three factors: unprecedentedglobal
advances in mass media, great economic prosperityin industrialnations, and a
large, well-educated population of youth. Students and educators of that time
were exposed to global reports such as the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth
(Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972) and later those of Brandt
(1980) and Brundtland(1987). These reportsdemonstratedthat humanityshared
many interdependentglobal problems and responsibilities,and this perspective
became a benchmarkfor educationalreformfor a new generationof studentsand
educators.

THE HALL-DENNIS REPORTAND THE PARADIGMOF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE

In the late 1960s, people believed strongly in education's ability to reconstruct

the world and create a just society. Ontario'sHall-Dennisreport(OntarioDepart-
ment of Education, 1968) was an eloquent statementof those times and of an
education about global interdependence.Writtenjust after Canada's centennial
year and submitteda year before Neil Armstrongwas to walk on the moon, the
reportdeclared:

Westandtodayin thedawnof oursecondcenturyandassessthefieldof futureeducation

... we mustnot lose sightof thehumanneedsthatthenew dawnbrings... we havein
ourhandsthe meansof changefor humanbetterment... for the peopleof Ontario...
andhopefully. . . [for]all mankind.(p. 9)
for all Canadians,
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 313

The report was deliberately global in its references, asserting that education
should promote understanding,tolerance, and friendshipamong all nations and
furtherthe activities of the United Nations. It also claimed that schools had a
significantmandateto educatestudentsaboutsuch issues as the threatof nuclear
war, the role of Canadain world affairs, air and water pollution, and the expan-
sion of the world's population(p. 67).
Althoughthe Hall-Dennisreportoften alludedto the importanceof a paradigm
devoted to global education and internationalunderstanding,it did not provide
specific and structuralrecommendationsfor operationalizingthis kind of global
paradigmin the Ontariocurriculumor its educationalgoals. The reportunfortun-
ately placed most of the responsibility for curriculumdevelopment on school
staffs and school boards. Now, more than 30 years later, it may be argued that
this failure to help implement a paradigmof global interdependenceand inter-
national understandingwas the report's great lost opportunity.It left under-
developed, for over a quarter-century,a curriculartraditionthat could success-
fully challenge the paradigmof global economic competitiveness.

GLOBAL UNCERTAINTYAND THE DEBATE ABOUT EDUCATIONALSTANDARDS

By the early 1970s, global developmentssuch as high unemployment,the OPEC

crisis, and the rise of Japanin world trade made Ontarianstake more seriously
the link between education and continued prosperity.However, their best and
ratheruncriticalsolution to these challenges was a demand, by such groups as
the CanadianManufacturers'Associationandthe Chamberof Commerce(Curtis,
Livingstone, & Smaller, 1992), for educationthat went "backto the basics" and
ensured employability. Ontario gradually increased the number of mandatory
credits in its high school diploma:to 6 in 1974, 7 in 1977, 9 in 1979, and 16 in
1984. Furthermore,the Ministryof Educationreleasedmore than 150 curriculum
guidelines for the Intermediateand Senior Division and, in 1976, announcedthat
it would revise Ontario's curriculumguidelines to get a firmer grip on their
content, making them more prescriptiveand more practical.
The Ontariopublic seemed to believe that the best response to global change
was not a serious investigation of the causes of such change in economics,
technology, ecology, society, and politics-and the inclusion of these in its
educationalreforms-but ratherthe implementationof standardsand rigour.In
effect, neither global paradigmguided Ontario'seducationalreforms.

RECONSIDERINGA PARADIGMOF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCEFOR ONTARIO

Althoughthe global paradigmeluded the public at large, it did not elude Ministry
officials or the education community in Ontario.In January1980, the Ministry
of Educationand the Ministryof Colleges and Universities drew together senior
314 BRIANO'SULLIVAN

staff to form a Strategic Planning Task Group (SPTG) whose mandate was to
deal with strategic issues that would affect education in Ontario for the next
5-20 years. The SPTG conductedenvironmentalscans aboutsome 80 important
concerns, consolidating its work in the report Towardsthe Year2000 (Ontario
Ministryof Education,1984). It arguedthateducationmust, as a system, prepare
itself and its studentsto anticipateand to adaptto global change, and that to do
so would requirerenegotiatingthe goals of Ontarioeducation.It recognized that
global conditions, such as cultural and demographicchanges, environmental
changes, new employability skills, and the changed roles of women in society,
should influence Ontario'seducation policy. The report added that the govern-
ment should improve its scanningand analysis infrastructureto anticipatefuture
long-range strategic issues for education. Despite this report's comprehensive
plan for reformingOntarioeducation and despite its general acknowledgement
of an educationalparadigmof global interdependence,Towardsthe Year2000
was out of step with an Ontariopublic thathad become quite narrowlyutilitarian
about its expectations for education.
A survey of public attitudestowardseducationin Ontario,conducted by the
OntarioInstitutefor Studies in Education,found that the public rankedits first
and second prioritiesfor high school educationas job trainingand career prep-
aration(Livingstone& Hart, 1981), and thatit highly valuedcomputereducation,
followed by science, then by business and vocational education (Livingstone,
Hart,& Davie, 1985). The ROSEreport,as TheRenewalof SecondaryEducation
in Ontario (OntarioMinistryof Education, 1982) came to be known, generally
reflected these views: "The public expects the schools to provide students with
a useful basic educationthat preparesthem for direct entry into employmentor
for post-secondaryeducation . . . [with] more demandingstandardsof achieve-
ment and discipline" (pp. 4, 5).

RADWANSKI AND THE NEW GLOBAL BENCHMARKFOR ONTARIOEDUCATION

The Radwanski report (Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education and the
Issue of Dropouts;Radwanski, 1987) became the first majorpolicy documentto
articulatesuccessfully to Ontariansthe province'sneed for a paradigmof global
economic competitivenessfor education.Citing the findings of a previous study
(the 1986 Ontario Study of the Service Sector) in which Radwanski had also
been involved, it argued that "to compete effectively in a new knowledge-
intensive global economy . . . excellence in educatingour workforceis our single
most importantstrategic weapon"(p. 11).
Radwanski'sreportwas no doubtshapedby the perspectiveshe broughtto the
study as a journalist and influencedby several contemporaryreportson educa-
tion: A Nation at Risk (U.S., National Commissionon Excellence in Education,
1983), A Nation Prepared (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy,
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 315

1986), and Making TechnologyWork(Economic Council of Canada, 1987). All

three underscoredthe importanceof a highly educated workforcefor success in
the global economy. The significantlegacy of the Radwanskireportwas that, for
the first time, the Ontario public's long-standing curricularpriority of career
education and job preparationwas turnedinto a global concern. In effect, since
Radwanski (1987), the public has demandedthat the paradigmof global eco-
nomic competitiveness be the new standardof reference for Ontarioeducation.
Although Radwanski proposed that education also include the study of the
history and geographyof Canadaand the world because "we live in an increas-
ingly interdependentworld"(pp. 47, 52), his main argumentwas that Ontarians
had economic intereststo protect in a common global future.
The year after the Radwanskireportappeared,the OntarioPremier's Council
issued Competingin the New Global Economy(1988); two years later came the
Council's subsequent report, People and Skills in the New Global Economy
(1990). The firstreportemphasizedthe importanceof science and technology for
internationalcompetitivenessin industryand education;the second underscored
the link between education and global competitiveness.

A NATIONAL EDUCATIONDEBATE ABOUT GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

Ontario'scalls for educationalreformin the late 1980s and early 1990s were part
of a larger global trend in industrialnations, that of asserting that globalization
had broughtabout a crisis in education.Reforms of education systems in other
nations-the United Kingdom (The Education ReformAct, 1988), the United
States (America 2000; Goals 2000), France (Loi d'orientation sur l'education,
1989) and Japan(The Fourthand Final Reporton EducationalReform, 1987)-
were enacted in response to the restructuringof the global economy in the late
1980s and early 1990s. In Canada,majoremployers such as CN Rail, Dofasco,
ImperialOil, and IBM Canadacut their workforcessignificantly.Moreover,new
knowledge-intensive industries in computers and semiconductors, health and
medical care, and telecommunicationsmade new educational demands of the
workforce (Beck, 1992).
The debate about reforming Canada's education system became even more
intense in 1991 with the release of two Governmentof Canadadiscussion papers,
Learning Well ... Living Well (Canada, Prosperity Secretariat, 1991a) and
ProsperityThroughCompetitiveness(Canada,ProsperitySecretariat,199lb). The
former proposed national learning targets for Canada:that 90% of Canadians
obtain a high school diploma; that the numberof post-secondary graduatesin
science, engineering,and technology double;thatCanadabecome a world leader
at all levels in math and science; and that there be increased representationof
women in math, science, and technology programs. Not surprisingly, these
education targets were very similar to U.S. President George Bush's national
316 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

education plan released the previous year. Prosperity ThroughCompetitiveness

was critical of Canada's school-to-worktransition;it found schools effectively
unconnected to the world of work, and it favoured a consensus to establish
Canada-wide goals for education and training. Even colleges and universities
were not exempt from this debate. Reports by the CanadianChamberof Com-
merce (1993), The National Directionfor Learning,and by the Economic Coun-
cil of Canada (1992), A Lot to Learn, arguedfor greateremphasis on science,
math, and engineering education to enable Canada to compete in the global
economy and for greatercongruencebetween education and employers' needs.
"Marketresponsiveness"became the magic phrasefor universities,advocatedby
such groups as the Fraser Institute, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Conference
Boardof Canada,and the CanadianManufacturers'Association and in the media
(Emberley, 1996, p. 154).
These calls for educationdevotedto global economic competitivenesswere not
based on critical analysis of the presumedlink between education and the econ-
omy. Ratherthan investigatingthe impactof tradeand tariff policies, the role of
research and development, or the merits of enhanced industrialtraining in the
workforce, many groups uncriticallyassumed that education alone drove Can-
ada's global prosperity.

GLOBAL ECONOMICCOMPETITIVENESSVERSUS GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE

By the early 1990s, it was apparentthat two distinct paradigmswere competing

for control of the educational reform agenda: education for global economic
competitiveness and education for global interdependence.
Groupsadvocatinga paradigmof educationfor global economic competitive-
ness includedthe formerEconomic Council of Canada,the Business Council on
National Issues, the CanadianChamberof Commerce,the ConferenceBoard of
Canada,the ProsperitySecretariatof the federal Government,and the Premier's
Council of the Government of Ontario. They called for substantial business
involvement in educationalreform and identified areas such as math, science,
literacy, and technology as importantpriorities in new curricularreforms. The
Conference Board of Canada's Employability Skills Profile (1992) focused
on almost exactly the skills listed up by the U.S. Departmentof Labor and U.S.
business groups.HarvardprofessorMichael Porter'sstudy Canada at the Cross-
roads (1991) arguedthat Canada'sprosperitydependedon Canadianbusiness's
forging closer ties with educational institutions, including having more direct
influence on curriculumat universities,colleges, and technical institutes and on
the establishment,by government,of nationalstandardsfor education.The final
reportof Canada'sProsperitySecretariat,InventingOurFuture(1992), called for
a national forum on education; advocated increased interest in mathematics,
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 317

science, and technology-related skills; and proposed stronger links between

schools and the world of work.
Groupsthatadvocatedthe opposingparadigm,global interdependence,includ-
ed the CanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency (CIDA) and the Roundtables
on the Environmentand the Economy. In Ontario, education for global inter-
dependence was also supportedby the OntarioTeachers'Federation(OTF) and
some universities' graduateeducation faculties. Educators for global interde-
pendence were motivated by the concern that students were unaware of the
complex natureof global issues and trends (Roche, 1989). By 1991, CIDA had
funded global educationoffices in eight Canadianprovinces to promoterelevant
teacher education and curriculumdevelopment. In explaining its mandate, the
OntarioOTF/CIDAglobal educationprojectassertedthateducationmust include
preparationfor the unprecedentedrate of change in the modern world and that
global concepts of social justice, peace, human rights, development, and the
environmentbelong in the curriculum(Lyons, 1992). In April 1992, the OTF
Board of Governorspassed a resolution supportingeducation for a global per-
spective in the Ontarioschool system.
The movement favouring educationfor global interdependencearose from a
growing conviction that education needed to prepare students for more than
simply economic concerns about the global economy. Tye (1990), Hanvey
(1982), Kennedy (1993), Brown (1994), and O'Sullivan (1999) have demonstrat-
ed that a wide arrayof global concerns-economic, technological, ecological,
political, cultural, and humanitarian- should be dealt with in our educational
reforms. As well, traditionalstandardsof progress and excellence in industrial
nations are being challenged in a world of global change (Berry, 1990; Daly &
Cobb, 1989). Educatorshave had to reconsidertheir definitionsof excellence in
educationand to acknowledgethata relevantcurriculummust take into consider-
ation all major global challenges. However, support for a paradigm of global
interdependencewas not going to figure prominentlyin the national education
debates in Canada.

THE CMEC AND THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONDEBATE

In April 1993, the federal governmentannounceda strategy that would give it

the authorityto set national targets to improve education, to investigate redir-
ecting federal tax dollars to fulfil such goals, and to mobilize public-sector and
private-sectoractivities in supportof a learningculturein Canada.The groupthat
felt the most intense pressureto act in the wake of this federal pronouncement
was the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC). In its Victoria
Declarationof September 1993, the CMEC asserted its right to act as Canada's
national voice in educational matters and committed itself to an action plan
318 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

centred on national curriculumcompatibility,national testing, and a national

approachto dealing with globalization of the economy. It is worth noting that
the CMEC's draft of its mission statementearlier that year included references
to the importanceof the environment,equity,and sustainabledevelopment-but
these were not the prioritiesstated in the VictoriaDeclaration.
The CMEC's School Achievement IndicatorsProgram(SAIP) was its main
strategy in pursuit of national educational standards.In April 1993, the SAIP
assessment in math and problem solving was administeredacross Canada to
28,000 13-year-oldsand 27,000 16-year-olds;the CMECconductedfurtherSAIP
tests in literacy in 1994, in science in 1996, in math again in 1997, and in
literacy again in 1998. Pan-Canadianeducation conferences, mentioned in the
CMEC Victoria Declaration, were soon underwayin Montreal in 1994 and in
Edmontonin May 1996. By autumn 1997, the CMEC was completing a frame-
work for a nationalscience curriculum.That same year, it announcedthat it had
conductedimportanttalks with nationalcorporationsin banking,telecommunica-
tions, and high-level technology to identifythe kinds of knowledge and employa-
bility skills needed in Canada'sschool system (Robertson,1998). The connected-
ness of nationalachievementto global economic competitivenesscontinues to be
an importantpriorityfor the CMEC in Canada'snational education debates.

THE RAE GOVERNMENTAND THE COMMON CURRICULUM

Against this backdropof national initiatives in education, some controversial

developments occurred in Ontario when the NDP governmentunder Bob Rae
came to power. In January1992, EducationMinister Tony Silipo announceda
major restructuringinitiative for Grades 7-9 in Ontario schools that would
prepare children for "an ever-changing world" and take education from an
industrialsociety to a post-industrialworld. According to Emberley and Newell
(1994), much inspirationfor this initiativecame from the task force reportof the
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Turning Points: Preparing
American Youthfor the 21st Century.In September 1992, the government an-
nounced that by September1993, Grade9 courses would no longer be streamed
into advanced, general, and basic course levels. In addition, the Grade 9 cur-
riculumwould be convertedfrom credit courses to integratedstudies in the four
core program areas: language; the arts; self and society; and mathematics,
sciences, and technology. These reforms, dubbed the three "D's" (de-labelling,
de-streaming,de-coursing), were strongly criticized by parentgroups and busi-
ness interests.Perhapsin response to this criticism, the governmentannounced
in its 1993 Thronespeech thatit plannedhave the entireschool system reviewed
by a Royal Commissionon Learningco-chairedby GeraldCaplanand Monique
Begin. Launched in May 1993, the Commission had a very broad mandate to
examine the purpose and direction of Ontario'sschool system.
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 319

The governmentreforms and their projectedoutcomes for Ontarioeducation

(Grades 1-9) were eventually detailed in several versions of the Common Cur-
riculum, the first of which appearedin 1993 (OntarioMinistryof Educationand
Training, 1993). The Common Curriculumrecognized the importanceof global
influences on education and society as well as the impact of rapidly changing
technology on education in Ontario.Its final version, released in 1995 (Ontario
Ministry of Education and Training, 1995), established specific outcomes for
Grades3, 6, and 9 and articulated10 essential cross-curricularlearningoutcomes
for Ontario,of which 3 were explicitly global. This document explictly recog-
nized the great importanceof both global economic competitiveness and educa-
tion for global interdependence.Missing from the final version was reference to
a studentcommitmentto peace, social justice, and protectionof the environment.
However, the documentcontinuedto draw some groups' ire for several reasons.
The Coalition for EducationReform, an educationallobby group, was generally
critical of outcome-basededucation because it believed the system lacked any
means of measuring students' achievement in core curriculumsubjects. Others
thought the essential cross-curricularoutcomes in the Common Curriculum
dependedtoo heavily on the ConferenceBoard of Canada'sEmployabilitySkills
profile and were a concession to business advocacy groups(Emberley& Newell,
1994, p. 39). As one journalistnoted (Lewington, 1994), the struggle to set out
curricularobjectives for Ontariostudentshad been a gruelling exercise in which
success eluded governmentsled by all threepartiesover the previous decade (the
1980s).
Moreover, the report of Ontario's Royal Commission on Learning (1994)
provided little investigation or analysis of the global forces affecting Ontario
education. Although the Rae governmentmade some efforts to balance the two
global paradigms in its policy reforms for Ontario education- similar to the
efforts of governments during the Hall-Dennis era-these efforts were insuf-
ficient to implement the new reforms in curriculaor new education initiatives.
In 1995, Rae's NDP governmententered a provincial election promising to act
on several of the Royal Commission's recommendationsand to devise a new
provincial curriculum.With the government'sdefeat, any such pursuitof global
goals for Ontarioeducation as part of governmentpolicy also ended.

THE HARRIS GOVERNMENTAND THE TWO GLOBAL PARADIGMS

The election of the Harris government in Ontario in 1995 shifted the debate
about educationalreform from concerns over the two global paradigmsto one
about"rigour"in educationand aboutcuttinga billion dollarsfrom the provincial
educationbudget. It soon became apparentthat the Harrisgovernmentaimed to
achieve neitherglobal paradigm.Rather,its goal was to centralizeits power over
provincial education by reducing the authority of school boards and teacher
320 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

federationsand to assert more control over provincial curriculum,reportcards,

and provincial testing. Although the Harris government did not specifically
articulatea position on eitherglobal paradigmfor education,it pursuedthe kinds
of global structuraladjustmentstypical of business corporationsin the 1990s:
namely, it downsized its bureaucracy,outsourcedits work, privatizedits work-
force, centralizedits operationalauthority,and made deep budget cuts.
The Harris governmentsubstantiallycut the budget for education and made
no promises that these funds would ever be reinvestedin the education system.
The exact magnitudeof cuts is debatable,but Mackenzie (1999) argues that the
Harrisgovernmentcut more than $525 million prior to enacting Bill 160 (The
EducationQualityImprovementAct) and a further$672 million in ongoing cuts
based on the Bill 160 funding formula. Bill 160 furthercentralized provincial
control over school board funding and teachers' working conditions, and in its
earlier proposals even sought to allow uncertifiedteachers into the profession.
The Harrisgovernment'splan in Bill 160 to centralizeits provincialauthorityled
126,000 Ontario teachers to strike for two weeks in the autumnof 1997. The
combined result of Bill 160 and Bill 104 (The Fewer School Boards Act) was
effectively to end the independenceof local school boards. Bill 160 relieved
municipalities of about $5.4 billion spent on schools (Middlestaedt & Rusk,
1997) and gave the provincialcabinetunprecedentedpower over futureeducation
tax rate increases without requiringlegislative approval(Mackie, 1997).
The new provincial control over the elementaryschool curriculumbegan in
September1997 with the implementationof new Grade 1-8 Math and Language
curriculacontainingdetailedlists of mandatoryexpectations(followed by course
outlines in other subjects). Gone were referencesto equity and antiracism,key
concepts in the NDP's Common Curriculum(Small, 1997). The high school
reform agenda, which began in September 1999, has few links to either global
paradigm. It centres on minor changes to the Ontario diploma requirements,
streamed Grades 9 and 10 courses, a standardizedprovincial report card, pro-
posed teacher mentors, annual education plans for students, having students
perform 40 hours of community service, and the implementionof a Grade 10
literacy test.
Its failure to provide a new high school curriculumafter almost three years in
office was problematicfor the Harrisgovernment.In January1998, in a dramatic
departurefrom past practice,the governmentannouncedthat it would outsource
the provincial curriculumon the basis of competitive bids from the private
sector. This action was consistent with patternsobserved by authors such as
Winner(1999), who has arguedthatmany global forces which have transformed
corporatestructuresin the economy now promise also to alter education at all
levels (leading to, for example, downsizing, outsourcing, and more part-time
permanentemployment).That groupsor individualswishing to bid on one of the
13 Ontariosubject areas had to download the bid documents from MERX, an
electronic online service (Small, 1998), provoked considerable controversy,
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM 321

especially because the bidding was open to U.S. companies. Subsequent ap-
proval, in June 1998, allowing U.S textbook companies to compete for the $100
million fund for textbooksales to Ontarioschools also upset Canadianpublishers
(Girard,1998).
The resulting Grades 9 and 10 curriculumdocuments were published and
distributedto Ontarioschools in March 1999. They make passing reference in
their introductionsto the importanceof their subjects in a global context (such
as, in French, "to enhance tolerance and respect for other cultures"and, in the
Arts, "to gain insight into the human condition"), and they include topics of
global importance.However, because of the haste to provide these documents to
the public before the 1999 provincialelection, there was no serious debate about
the overall goals and purposeof Ontarioeducation in a global context. Perhaps
the most telling absence of global goals appearsin the major governance docu-
ment for Ontariosecondary schools, Ontario Secondary Schools Grades 9-12:
Program and Diploma Requirements,1999 (OntarioMinistry of Education and
Training, 1999). Its introductionstates simply that the Ontariosecondary school
programis "designed"to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed
to lead "satisfying and productivelives in the twenty-firstcentury"(p. 6).

CONCLUSION: EDUCATION, GLOBALIZATION,AND THE PUBLIC GOOD

For the last 30 years, Ontariansand Canadianshave had pragmaticexpectations

for education.In continuingto supporta narrowutilitarianview of education,the
public's prioritiesfor reformremainmostly technical: institutingprovincial and
nationalassessment (SAIP), subscribingto nationallearningtargetsin education,
and centralizingeducationalgovernanceand power. Highly public reform agen-
das from other nations-in particular,U.S. thinking about educational reform
and the global economy-have consistently influenced Ontario educational
reforms since Radwanski.
The paradigmof global economic competitivenesshas dominatededucational
reforms, yet there has been little debate about the problems posed by this kind
of globalization. First, although students are encouraged to take challenging
courses to preparethem to be part of tomorrow'sworkforce,Fortune500 com-
panies shed more than 583,000 high-technologyworkersin 1993 and economic
trendspoint to an abundanceof low-wage, low-technologyjobs (Boutwell, 1997).
Similar Canadianstudies anticipatethe same low-wage job expansion (Living-
stone, 1997; Paquette, 1995). As Rifkin (1997) points out, knowledge workers
will never be needed in large numbersbecause theirs is an elite labour force in
this InformationAge. Second, when Canada'sglobal leadershipis put to the test,
be it by peacekeepingin Kosovo or by participatingat the Kyoto environmental
summit, studentsneed global skills beyond simply an educationabout economic
competitiveness.Third,globalizationalso challengesthe broaderpublic good. As
Kaplan(1997) argues,the concentrationof power in some 500 large corporations
322 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

that account for 70% of the world's traderaises new challenges for democracy
and the maintenanceof an informedcitizenry.McQuaig(1999) arguesthat"good
globalization" of the 1940s to the 1970s-characterized by strong national
governmentsthatexertedcontrolover investorcapitaland createdpolicies aimed
at full employment and strong social programs-is today under siege and that
a strong political will is requiredto protect the public good. As Taylor (1998)
argues,in an era of globalization,the democraticnationstate must remainstrong
because its citizens have no otherinstrumentof democraticcontrolto modify the
ill effects of globalization.It is importantthat these aspects of economic global-
ization be understood-not only to clarify global economic trends but also to
betterinformdebates aboutthe goals of educationin the context of globalization
so as to ensure protectionof the public good.
It is by no means easy to negotiate the goals of educationin a global context.
In doing so, one must ultimatelyconsider the purpose of education in a global
era and what constitutes a relevant curriculumin the midst of globalization.
Powerful economic groups arguethat the crisis before us is about success in the
global economy, but this has been a clarion call from governmentand business
since the start of the 20th century.Although preparingfor the global economy
is a worthwhiletask for schools, an educationthat disregardsthe study of other
significant global change is an incomplete education for the 21st century. To
establish educational goals relevant in this era of globalization, educational
reforms should include the study of all aspects of global change-changes not
only in economies and technologies but also in world cultures,politics, ecology,
and humanitarianissues-and of the extent to which they are all profoundly
interdependent.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Mary Laurellafor her suggestions and editorial assistance.

REFERENCES
Beck, N. (1992). Shiftinggears in the new economy.Toronto:HarperCollins.
Berry,T. (1990). The dream of the earth. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books.
Boutwell, C. E. (1997). CorporateAmerica's shell game for schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 104-
111.
Brandt,W. (1980). North-south:A programfor survival. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Brown, L. (1994). State of the world report, 1994. New York:W. W. Norton.
Brundtland,G. (1987). Our commonfuture. New York:Oxford University Press.
Canada, Prosperity Secretariat.(1991a). Learning well ... living well. Ottawa: Government of
Canada.
Canada,ProsperitySecretariat.(1991b). Prosperitythroughcompetitiveness.Ottawa:Governmentof
Canada.
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM 323

Canada,ProsperitySecretariat.(1992). Inventingourfuture: An action plan for Canada'sprosperity.

Ottawa:Governmentof Canada.
CanadianChamberof Commerce.(1993). Thenationaldirectionfor learning:A businessperspective.
Ottawa:Author.
CanadianManufacturers'Association. (1907, June). Efficiency. IndustrialCanada, 7 (no. 11), 844.
Carnegie Forum on Educationand the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachersfor the 21st
century.Washington,DC: Author.
Conference Board of Canada.(1992). Employabilityskills profile. Ottawa:Author.
Curtis, B., Livingstone, D. W., & Smaller,H. (1992). Stackingthe deck: The streamingof working
class kids in Ontario schools. Toronto:Our Schools/OurSelves EducationFoundation.
Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the commongood. Boston: Beacon Press.
Economic Council of Canada (1987). Making technology work: Innovation and jobs in Canada.
Ottawa:Author.
Economic Council of Canada.(1992). A lot to learn. Ottawa:Author.
Emberley, P. C. (1996). Zero tolerance: Hot button topics in Canada's universities. Toronto:
Penguin.
Emberley,P. C., & Newell, W. R. (1994). Bankrupteducation: The decline of liberal education in
Canada. Toronto:University of TorontoPress.
Fleming, W. G. (1972). Education: Ontario'spreoccupation.Toronto:OISE Press.
France, Ministere de l'education nationale. (1989). Loi d'orientation sur l'education du 10 juillet
1989.
Girard,D. (1998, June 19). Johnson defends buying U.S. textbooks for youngsters. TorontoStar,
p. A6.
Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainableglobal perspective. TheoryInto Practice, 21(3), 162-167.
Japan,National Council on EducationalReform. (1987). Thefourth and final report on educational
reform.Tokyo: Governmentof Japan.
Kaplan, R. D. (1997, December). Was democracyjust a moment?Atlantic Monthly,280, 55-80.
Kennedy, P. (1993). Preparingfor the twenty-firstcentury.New York:Random House.
Lewington, J. (1994, November 3). Little differencein Ontario'sredraftedschool curriculum.Globe
and Mail, p. A8.
Livingstone, D. W. (1997). Computerliteracy,the "knowledgeeconomy" and informationcontrol:
Micro myths and macro choices. In M. Moll (Ed.), Tech high: Globalization and the future of
Canadian education (pp. 99-116). Ottawa:CanadianCentre for Policy Alternatives/Fernwood
Publishing.
Livingstone, D. W., & Hart, D. J. (1981). Public attitudes toward education in Ontario, 1980.
Toronto:Ontario Institutefor Studies in Education.
Livingstone, D. W., Hart,D. J., & Davie, L. E. (1985). Public attitudestowardeducation in Ontario,
1984. Toronto:OntarioInstitutefor Studies in Eduction.
Lyons, T. (1992, March). Educationfor a global perspective. Orbit, 23, 10-12.
Mackenzie, H. (1999). Education funding in Ontario:How the government used its new funding
formula to short-changeour children'sfuture. Our Schools/Our Selves, 9(5), 97-125.
324 BRIAN O'SULLIVAN

Mackie, R. (1997, November 20). Ontario's$6 billion tax levy blasted by critics. Globe and Mail,
p. A17.
McQuaig, L. (1999). A matterof will. Queen's Quarterly,106, 9-15.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers,J., & Behrens,W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth:
A reportfor the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicamentof Mankind.New York: Universe
Books.
Middlestaedt,M., & Rusk, J. (1997, January18). Ontarioshake-up a real rattler.Globe and Mail,
pp. Al, A8.
France, Ministere de l'education nationale. (1989). Loi d'orientation sur l'dducation du 10 juillet
1989. Paris: Author.
Ontario Departmentof Education.(1968). Living and learning: The report of the Provincial Com-
mittee on the Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario [the Hall-Dennis
report].Toronto:Newton Publishing.
OntarioMinistryof Education.(1982). The renewalof secondaryeducation in Ontario:Response to
the report of the Secondary EducationReview Project. Toronto:Author.
OntarioMinistry of Education.(1984). Towardsthe year 2000: Future considerationsand strategic
optionsfor the support of learning in Ontario.Toronto:Author.
OntarioMinistryof Educationand Training.(1993). The CommonCurriculum:Grades 1-9. Toronto:
Author.
Ontario Ministry of Educationand Training.(1995). The CommonCurriculum:Policies and Out-
comes, Grades 1-9. Toronto:Author.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1999). Ontario secondary schools Grades 9-12:
Program and diploma requirements,1999. Toronto:Author.
OntarioPremier'sCouncil. (1988). Competingin the new global economy. Toronto:Author.
OntarioPremier's Council. (1990). People and skills in the new global economy. Toronto:Author.
OntarioRoyal Commission on Learning.(1994). For the love of learning. Toronto:OntarioMinistry
of Educationand Training.
O'Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformativelearning: Educational vision for the 21st century.Toronto:
University of TorontoPress.
Paquette,J. (1995). Universaleducation:Meanings,challenges,and options into the thirdmillennium.
CurriculumInquiry,25, 23-56.
Porter,M. (1991). Canada at the crossroads:The reality of a new competitiveenvironment.Ottawa:
Business Council on National Issues/Governmentof Canada
Radwanski, G. (1987). Ontario study of the relevance of education and the issue of dropouts.
Toronto:OntarioMinistryof Education.
Rifkin, J. (1997). Rethinkingthe purpose of education:Preparingstudents for "The end of work."
Educational Leadership,54(5), 30-33.
Robertson,H.-j. (1998). No more teachers, no more books. Toronto:McClelland & Stewart.
Roche, D. (1989, May). A passion for the planet. Alberta Teachers' Association Magazine, 69,
16-18.
Small, P. (1997, August 30). The battle over the new curriculum.TorontoStar, pp. Bi, B5.
Small, P. (1998, January27). Ontariocourses face U.S. input. TorontoStar, p. A6.
Taylor,C. (1998). Globalizationand the futureof Canada.Queen's Quarterly,105, 331-342.
GLOBAL CHANGE AND EDUCATIONALREFORM 325

Tye, K. (1990). Global education: From thought to action. Washington, DC: Association for
Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.
United Kingdom. (1988). The EducationReformAct, 1988.
United States. (1993). Goals 2000: EducateAmerica Act (1993).
U.S. Departmentof Fxlucation.(1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education.(1983). A nation at risk. Washington,DC:
U.S. Departmentof Education.
Winner,L. (1999). The hand writing on the wall: Resisting technoglobalism'sassault on education.
In M. Moll (Ed.), Techhigh: Globalizationand thefuture of Canadianeducation (pp. 167-188).
Ottawa:CanadianCentrefor Policy Altematives/FemwoodPublishing.

Brian O'Sullivan is principalof FatherBressani Catholic High School in Woodbridge,Ontario and

can be contacted at 190 St. Leonard'sAvenue, Toronto,Ontario,M4N 1K7.