Centralization and education: The origins of an Ontario tradition

Centralization and education: the origins of an Ontario tradition R. D. GIDNEY During the last decade there has been growing criticism of the administrative structure of Canadian education. Some of it has come from within professional circles, from teachers, for instance, frustrated by the rigidities of their prescribed curriculum guides. Some of it has been part of a general critique of society made by students and others belonging to the old and new left. Most recently , the school system has been attacked by men of a conservative temper on the grounds that it has contributed to the alienation and homogenization purportedly typical of our times. In a recent issue of the Journal of Canadian Studies, an editorial by R.R.H. suggests that the educational "monolith" was established at a time "when the chaos of cultures made necessary the imposition of some suitable homogenizing process and the instrument chosen was the public school. ..." However necessary it may have been at the time, he continues, the system has now outlived its usefulness. Because of its emphasis on centralization and uniformity it tends, like so many other modern institutions, to smother "both spontaneous originality and respect for indigenous tradition." It is, moreover , a typical product of liberalism which looks forward "implicitly if not explicitly, to the creation of a homogeneous and universal republic." Radical decentralization thus becomes a truly conservative policy in education for it would resist this trend, and would "foster a union which cherishes and preserves non-union." 1 This may well be relevant criticism of contemporary education. But one would feel more comfortable if R.R.H.'s concern for "indigenous tradition" extended to our indigenous educational tradition. Centralization and uniformity, whatever their merits, were Journal of Canadian Studies not estabii.shed in this country to cope with "the chaos of cultures brought... by largescale immigration," nor was the justification for centralization originally framed in terms of social unity. Ontario's educational "monolith ," which was to influence the structure of school systems in other provinces, was largely established by 1850. It was the product ·of Upper Canadian conservatism. And one leading aim of the system was not to homogenize, but to protect and preserve a fragile political structure within which an indigenous tradition could grow. There was never much debate in early Upper Canada about the idea that the state had an important role to play in education. The relative poverty of the community, the thinness of settlement, and religious pluralism meant that the traditional methods of providing education were largely inoperative. There was little private wealth available to endow schools, and the churches found it difficult to supply and maintain enough clergymen, let alone to provide support for parish schools. From the beginning, the state tended to supplant private wealth and religious aid in assisting local people to provide schools for themselves. But assistance and support for local initiative was one thing; supervision and control was another. By the end of the 1830s most people agreed that education in Upper Canada needed improvement, and they also agreed on some of the means by which this could be done: greater local uniformity of textbooks to replace the heterogeneous collection of books used in any given school, better educated teachers, better financing through local taxation, better supervision than the school section trustees had hitherto provided. However, there was no similar consensus on the regulatory role of the government . Did it have a right and a duty, not merely to aid, but to determine the kind of education provided in the schools? Who was best qualified to examine teachers, select textbooks, and regulate the general conduct of the schools? On these questions, 33 Upper Canadians in the thirties and forties were sharply divided. Though there were exceptions, tories and conservatives tended to favour a strong government role in education. Not surprisingly, the classic statement of the conservative case came from John Strachan. In the first place, he argued, the efficiency of the schools depended upon the quality of the men selected to supervise them. The day-to-day administration of the schools could safely be left in the hands of locally elected trustees. But supervision and general regulation the selection of...