Cory Morgan: Voucher System Would Boost School Choice and Innovation in Canada

The Canadian Press/Darryl Dyck

Commentary

When the Alberta teachers’ union overwhelmingly voted to begin a strike on Oct. 6, despite what appeared to be a reasonable offer on the table, citizens were confused. The government was prepared to give teachers a 12 percent raise, along with a commitment to hire 3,000 more teachers and 1,500 more educational assistants. It addressed what were considered the teachers’ prime concerns. The province is also investing $8.6 billion to construct new schools and add 200,000 educational spaces by 2031.

So, what do the teachers want?

The actions of one of the members of the executive council of the Alberta teachers’ union, offer a hint of where the hangup is. The day after teachers across the province walked out, the executive filed paperwork to try and invoke a referendum to ban provincial funding from going toward independent schools. The teachers’ union is ideologically opposed to offering educational choice in the primary and secondary levels of the school system.

Alberta has been leading the way in expanding school choice through charter schools for years. Enrolment in charter schools in Alberta is up 30 percent since 2019. Last December, Alberta Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides said he wanted to expand and establish charter schools more permanently into Alberta’s education system. This upset the Alberta Teachers’ Association, which has steadfastly opposed charter schools.

A term which has been used regularly by union representatives has been “classroom complexity.” They are referring to the growing number of special needs and English-as-a-second-language students in classrooms. They say this must be addressed as part of their strike demands, but don’t explain how. An irony in this is that charter schools address that issue excellently. They offer specialized schools for children with different learning needs, different cultural needs, and different languages. Children going to charter schools take the burden away from teachers in the public-school classrooms.

The debate over school choice is ideological and is much like the debate over health-care provision in Canada. While provinces struggle to provide adequate and timely health care to citizens under the rigid rules of the Canada Health Act, health-care unions oppose all efforts to ease the burden through expanding private health provision options. Under a legislated monopoly system, waiting times for care have continued to expand while efforts to reform the system are stymied by opponents raising the spectre of “Americanizing” our system.

In a monopoly system, whether in the private or public sectors, the consumer always loses. In the case of health care and education, patients and students are the consumers, and they are being poorly served.

An element of competition within systems increases efficiency in service delivery and outcomes. This has been proven in jurisdictions outside of Canada where voucher systems expand the range of educational choice for parents. In a voucher system, a set amount of funding is designated for every student, and it will be given to the educational institution that the student attends, whether it’s public or private. The money follows the student. As with health care, defenders of the status quo often claim that voucher systems are an American concept, but this isn’t true.

Sweden and the Netherlands are both liberal democracies with socialist tendencies. Both countries have embraced voucher systems for education, and it has worked excellently. In the Netherlands, over 70 percent of all schools are private. Those schools receive equal funding per student as public schools. In Sweden, students have scored higher than OECD average in mathematics, reading, and science. In the Netherlands, students scored higher than average in mathematics, though slightly below average in reading. Chile, Ireland, and Hong Kong all have successful voucher systems as well.

It defies common sense to continue to try to cram students with increasingly diversified needs into standardized classrooms. Through expanding the educational options with voucher-based funding, parents can direct their children to the schools that best suit their needs. Charter schools in Alberta serve kids with artistic gifts, cultural challenges, linguistic needs, and learning disabilities excellently. Expanding them in Alberta and across Canada would serve students well.

So why are unions so adamantly opposed to voucher systems? Because most charter and private schools aren’t unionized. Let’s face it, despite what unions claim, their priorities are to get the most they can for their workers and to expand union membership wherever possible. The needs of the students come second. It isn’t personal. It’s just the nature of unions.

Unions can and will continue to exist within a voucher system. They would have to serve their members better, though, as they could be drawn to work in charter and private schools. Competitive systems don’t just benefit students that way.

With growing complexity and changes in educational needs, Canadian provinces must increase school choice options. There is no better way to achieve that than through embracing a voucher system, which would foster competition and innovation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.