Connect with us

Education

Rethinking Public Education

Published

12 minute read

From The Audit

Holding public officials and institutions accountable using data-driven investigative journalism

What should public education accomplish?

On any given school day some six million Canadians between the ages of 5-18 are “locked up” – often against their will – inside K-12 schools. Approximately 2.5 percent of Canada’s gross domestic product is spent on public education. And, using Ontario as an example, that’ll cost more than $30 billion annually, or around 16 percent of the province’s budget.

Society invests heavily in education, and yet no one seems completely satisfied with the results. When was the last time you met an adult of any political stripe who didn’t have an opinion about what’s wrong with schools these days?

This piece was inspired by a comment to my recent Ranking Public Education Efficiency By Province post. That’s where I presented evidence suggesting increased funding would probably not solve the deep, systemic problems casting gloomy shadows up and down the halls of our ministries of education.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

So is there a better way to do public education? I honestly don’t know. But I do know that it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out if we don’t go back to the very beginning as ask some basic questions. And I also know that I haven’t seen most of these particular questions asked anywhere else:

What should public education accomplish?

How do you plan a trip if you don’t know where you want to go?

We can probably agree that all children should learn the skills they’ll need to live productive and successful lives as adults. And there’s not a lot of controversy in saying that those skills should include competence in reading, writing, and basic mathematics.

We can probably also agree that students should graduate with a healthy civic identity which would include comfort with, and loyalty to our cultural and legal heritage. However, things will get prickly when we try to define exactly what we mean by “identity” and “cultural”. Not to mention “heritage”. How do we decide whose definitions win?

Some will argue that schools should teach only skills and leave values out of the curriculum altogether. In other words, education should be culturally neutral. The biggest problem with that is that teachers aren’t neutral. Having taught high school for 20 years myself, I can tell you that, by design or by accident, a teacher enters the classroom as a complete and unsegmented person. And even the drowsiest, most distracted student senses it.

Some go a step further and advocate for teaching children the “critical thinking skills” they’ll need to make their own value judgments. Well that’s fine if you’re providing only the relevant epistemological, semantic, cognitive, and heuristic tools. But if your “critical thinking” curriculum includes even one values-based answer (see above for “unsegmented teachers”) then, by definition, you’re a propagandist.

What, exactly, is wrong with what we’ve already got?

There’s a lot here about which I simply don’t have enough clarity:

  • I’ve read that grade inflation is allowing students to graduate without having mastered the content to which their transcripts attest. But I haven’t been able to find hard data to assess the claims.
  • I’ve heard that employers are unsatisfied with the skills and work ethic of the young graduates applying for jobs. But how many employers? And how unsatisfied are they?
  • As a (former?) IT system administrator, I’m well aware that large-scale technology adoptions in education environments were, historically, often the product of vendor hype, unreasonable expectations, and precious little serious research. And they often led to outrageous unintended consequences. But I’m no longer sufficiently plugged in to that world to have a sense of whether, on aggregate, technology is helping or harming children (or simply draining budgets).
  • I’ve heard that at least some school boards appear to be dominated by extreme politically-driven ideologies. But how many boards are impacted? And how often do those ideologies find their way into classrooms?
  • I’ve seen evidence that Ministry-level policy research is relying on poor and debunked scholarship. But has it made a difference with anyone involved with actual classroom teaching? (And how do you measure “debunked”?)

Should control over education policy be centralized?

Curriculum policy in Canada is generally set at the provincial ministry level and politely ignored everywhere else. I’ve already written about that in these pages. But, as discussed earlier, K-12 policy development costs us hundreds of millions of dollars each year across the country.

I’m not sure it’s even possible to impose detailed policy and curriculum guidelines. As a wise man once told me, you can tell them exactly what you want them to say but, with an arched eyebrow or a subtle voice inflection, experienced teachers communicate whatever message they want.

Now, considering how the system is currently funded, it makes perfect sense that elected officials at the provincial level should determine education policy. What makes somewhat less sense is that the policy researchers they hire appear to invest a great deal of energy resisting government “interference” and also refuse to share their research with the public who paid for it.

But, in theory at least, is the current system ideal?

Let me take a step back. What exactly is an education expert whose opinions qualify as authoritative? The issue is complicated by the many popular pedagogical theories that have come and (in some cases) gone over the decades. Those include constructivism, behaviorism, social learning theory, cognitive load theory, multiple intelligences theory, experiential learning theory, connectivism, situated learning theory, Bloom’s taxonomy, and humanistic education.

However I don’t believe that any single one of those – or even a combination – has ever achieved any kind of lasting consensus as they they cycle in and out of popularity. Nor can it be claimed that the policies set by whoever the credentialed experts happen to be have led to consistently satisfying results.

That is certainly not to suggest that the experts’ guidance hasn’t delivered successes over the years, or that they don’t bring value to the table. But, after more than a century’s worth of experiments with centralized educational control, it might be time to try something else.

Refer a friend

Are all teenagers best served by mandatory enrollment?

When we acknowledge that no two children have identical needs and potential, it means that we have to be ready to treat them differently. And that’ll involve more than sending some kids to room 310 for their 10:30 class and others to room 315 across the hall. Isn’t it reasonable to wonder whether some teenagers can learn more and transition faster to responsible adult life outside educational frameworks?

Perhaps some truancy and child labour laws need updating.

Do vested interests stand in the way of positive change?

I honestly don’t know enough to have solid opinions on these questions, but they must be asked:

  • Are teachers colleges politicized?
  • Do the incentives driving powerful teachers unions conflict with students’ needs?
  • Are sharply competing visions within ministries of education paralyzing the system (and wasting resources)?
  • Should parent-advocates be allowed to interfere with educational professionals doing their work?
  • Can every ministry job category still justify its costs – in both budget and institutional friction?

The inexorable inertia of incumbency is also a key player in this story.

What could replace the current model?

Some of the conflicts describe above come down to opposing worldviews. Are you a top-down governance type in whose eyes only “the authorities” have the knowledge and power to manage the lives of their subjects? Or do you see government as the servant of the people, existing only to fill in for the individual when faced with tasks requiring collective action? The worldview checkbox you tick will probably influence the kinds of alternatives you find yourself visualizing.

However, preconceptions shouldn’t be our only consideration. If there’s anything practical you could take away from this post, it’s that we need more serious research. Sure, I know there are good people out there thinking deeply about education policy. I’m far from the first person asking some of those questions.

But I haven’t yet come across any holistic discussion that starts from first principles and, in those terms, seeks to understand exactly what we’ve got and what we’re missing. And it’s only with that knowledge could we hope to build something genuinely new.

Happy 2024-2025 school year!

Share

For a free subscription to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

A COVID-19 day of reckoning is long overdue

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By  Perry Kinkaide

Our youth are facing mental health struggles, disrupted education, and stunted social development due to Canada’s failed pandemic policies

The evidence is irrefutable: Canada’s response to COVID-19 betrayed its youth. Policies like school closures, social isolation and activity restrictions, meant to protect, ended up stunting the social, emotional and educational development of an entire generation.

While many adults navigated the pandemic with relative ease, Canadian youth, biologically the least vulnerable, suffered disproportionately. The damage is still unfolding, leaving lasting effects on their mental health, education and social development.

Young Canadians are now bearing the psychological and social scars of these misguided policies. Mental health struggles surged, with anxiety, depression and social isolation peaking in the years following the onset of the pandemic.

Research from the Québec Resilience Project confirms this, showing that mental health challenges among adolescents have remained high, even after restrictions were finally lifted. These struggles were not caused by the virus itself, but by the policies meant to protect them.

The impact is stark when compared to other countries. In nations like Sweden, Finland and Norway, where schools remained open, youth experienced far less disruption. They were able to maintain social connections, mental stability and routines—key to preserving their development during the pandemic.

By contrast, Canadian youth endured some of the longest school closures, with Ontario shutting down schools for over 26 weeks, more than double the global average. Canada’s extended school closures and social isolation were a profound misjudgment, failing to prioritize youth well-being.

While many youth were harmed, some were able to adapt and overcome the impact. Some, particularly those with strong family support, resilient routines and access to digital learning tools, adapted remarkably. Resilience, however, is not just an individual trait; it reflects the support systems in place. Those with resources to maintain normalcy were better able to recover, while those without such support were left behind.

The crisis has shown that the challenges facing youth are far more complex than originally thought. A generation is now grappling with emotional disengagement, academic delays and difficulties forming meaningful relationships. These issues will have long-term consequences, affecting not only their personal lives but also the broader Canadian economy.

We must recognize the full impact of these setbacks, especially regarding education and workforce readiness. The mental and social toll of these
disruptions will be felt for years to come.

This failure was not just the result of reactive public health policies; it was a failure of a system that de-prioritized youth needs. Young people were treated as threats to public health rather than as citizens with developmental needs. Adult focused activities, such as retail and liquor stores, remained open, while schools, sports and social activities—essential for youth development—were shut down.

This policy overreach wasn’t just avoidable; it was a betrayal of the next generation.

Now, as we emerge from this crisis, Canada faces a crucial choice: ignore the long-term consequences or confront the painful reality of how we failed our youth. The damage is not just a public health issue—it’s a societal one, impacting the mental and emotional well-being of an entire generation. Canada owes its youth more than apologies. It owes them a future free from the mistakes of the past.

Governments, educators, mental health systems and communities must step up—not just with lip service, but with meaningful action. We must rebuild the systems that support youth development, ensuring that this generation is not defined by the failed policies that stunted their growth.

The clock is ticking, and the question is no longer “What happened to our youth?” It’s “What are we doing to ensure this never happens again?”

Dr. Perry Kinkaide is a visionary leader and change agent. Since retiring in 2001, he has served as an advisor and director for various organizations and founded the Alberta Council of Technologies Society in 2005. Previously, he held leadership roles at KPMG Consulting and the Alberta Government. He holds a BA from Colgate University and an MSc and PhD in Brain Research from the University of Alberta

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta’s Environmental Changemakers Shine at the 2025 Emerald Awards

Published on

EDMONTON — From grassroots organizers to major industry players, Albertans working to protect the environment were in the spotlight this week at the 34th Annual Emerald Awards. Held at Edmonton’s Timms Centre for the Arts on June 5, the event recognized 14 outstanding recipients from across the province whose work is helping to build a more resilient, sustainable Alberta.

The awards, presented by the Alberta Emerald Foundation (AEF), are among the most prestigious environmental honours in Canada—celebrating projects that tackle everything from emissions reduction and conservation to education and climate adaptation.

This year marked a record-breaking number of submissions, with 72 nominations—AEF’s highest total in over a decade. A panel of independent judges selected 40 finalists across 14 categories, with one recipient named in each.

“These recipients reflect the diversity, creativity, and deep commitment to environmental stewardship we’re seeing across Alberta,” said Marisa Orfei, Executive Director of the Alberta Emerald Foundation. “Whether it’s restoring wetlands, leading innovative waste diversion programs, or inspiring change through education, each project tells a story of positive action.”

More Than Just Recognition

Along with their award, each recipient receives a $1,500 grant to support their ongoing work, a handcrafted trophy made from recycled chopsticks (courtesy of ChopValue YYC and Calgary restaurants), and a feature in the Emerald Documentary Series—which showcases environmental success stories across Alberta.

What sets the Emerald Awards apart is their inclusive approach. Winners span industries, nonprofits, Indigenous communities, youth initiatives, and municipal governments—underscoring that meaningful change can come from anywhere.

The Emerald Awards are the only program of their kind in Canada, and have become a launchpad for environmental innovation and storytelling that reaches far beyond Alberta’s borders.

To see the full list of 2025 recipients, visit albertaemeraldfoundation.ca.


Continue Reading

Trending

X