Between 1970 and 1990 enrolment in Newfoundland and Labrador schools dropped by 22 percent. The first wave of major educational reform (1990 to 2000) saw massive reductions in public school expenditures and the reduction of more than 1650 teachers. Facing continued enrolment loss and a large current account deficit, in 2004, government again consolidated school districts. In this paper I examine the 1997 and 2004 reforms and argue that the ―rationalization‖ agenda set by government was aggressive—driven primarily by fiscal and corporate factors. While the reforms accomplished their corporate goals, they also resulted in educational and organizational costs which should be weighed against potential benefits.
In this paper we compare the use of research and other evidence in the policy formation practices of two groups of education policy elites, situated in different contexts – provincial education ministries and school districts. Data are derived from two pan-Canadian studies: Galway (2006) and Sheppard, Galway, Brown Wiens (2013). The findings show that policy decisions at the ministry level are informed primarily by political and pragmatic factors, personal and professional beliefs and staff advice. The role of external research is shown to be relatively marginal and confined to quantitative studies and performance assessments. Decision makers at the school district level are less attendant to political and pragmatic influences relying more on personal beliefs, values and experiential factors supplemented by the advice of professional staff and in-house research/indicators. Results from both studies demonstrate limited reliance on external data and university-based research – the latter ranking 15th of 20 influencing factors. Consistent with Beck's (1994; 1997) risk theory, we theorize that education policy making in both contexts is influenced by both macro- and micro-level factors, where choice of policy evidence is mediated by personal considerations and political risk factors. This suggests a weak policy development paradigm that is, to a large extent, resistant to independent research-informed evidence. ; En este artículo comparamos el uso que se le ha dado a la investigación y otras evidencias científicas en la toma de decisiones de dos grupos de élite de política educativa, provenientes de dos contextos distintos –los ministerios de educación provinciales y los distritos escolares. Los datos se derivan de dos estudios pan-canadienses: Galway (2006) y Sheppard, Galway, Brown and Wiens (2013). Los resultados muestran que las decisiones políticas a nivel ministerial están principalmente influenciadas por factores políticos y pragmáticos, creencias personales y profesionales y conocimiento local. El papel de la investigación externa se demuestra que es relativamente marginal y se reduce a estudios cuantitativos y evaluaciones de desempeño. Los responsables de la toma de decisiones a nivel de distrito escolar están menos influenciados por los factores políticos y pragmáticos y confían más en las creencias, valores y experiencias personales junto con el asesoramiento de profesionales y los resultados de investigaciones internas. Los resultados de ambos estudios demuestran una escasa confianza en los datos externos y la investigación universitaria –que ocupa el puesto número 15 de 20 en el ranking de factores influyentes. En consonancia con la teoría del riesgo de Beck (1994; 1997), sostenemos que la formulación de políticas educativas en ambos contextos se ve influenciada por factores macro y micro, donde la elección de la evidencia política está mediatizada por consideraciones personales y factores de riesgo político. Esto supone un débil desarrollo del modelo político que es resistente a las pruebas procedentes de investigación independiente. ; Neste trabalho, comparamos o uso que tem sido dado à investigação e outras evidencias científicas na tomada de decisões de dois grupos da elite política em educação, de dois contextos diferentes -o ministérios provinciais de educação e distritos escolares. Os dados foram obtidos de dois estudos pan-canadenses: Galway (2006) e Sheppard, Galway, Brown e Wiens (2013). Os resultados mostram que as decisões políticas a nível ministerial são influenciados principalmente por fatores políticos e pragmáticos, crenças pessoais e profissionais e conhecimento local. O papel da investigação externa mostra que é relativamente marginal, reduzida para estudos quantitativos e avaliações de desempenho. Os responsáveis pela tomada de decisões em nível de distrito escolar são menos influenciados por fatores políticos e pragmáticos e confiam mais nas crenças, valores e experiências pessoais com aconselhamento profissional e os resultados das investigações internas. Os resultados de ambos estudos demonstram uma falta de confiança nos dados externos e pesquisa acadêmica, que é classificada como a No. 15 de 20 no ranking dos fatores influentes. Em consonância com a teoria do risco Beck (1994; 1997), que argumentam que a formulação de políticas educacionais em ambos os contextos é influenciada por fatores macro e micro, onde a escolha de evidência política é influenciada por considerações pessoais e fatores de risco política. Este é um fraco desenvolvimento do modelo político que é resistente a evidência de pesquisa independente.
Across Canada there have been numerous recent examples of incidents where the political and ideological interests of provincial governments have run counter to the mandates of school districts. In this pan-Canadian study, focus groups were conducted with school board trustees and school district superintendents to examine the relationships between districts and provincial governments. Preliminary data suggest that the significance of the school district apparatus in Canada has diminished as provincial governments have enacted an aggressive centralization agenda. We theorize that in a politicized environment, the values, reward systems, and accountabilities against which school board superintendents and trustees operate are likely to differ substantively from those of politicians and bureaucrats, thereby creating a policy environment that is antagonistic to local governance.
