Civil society data gathering in Canada

• In Event: The Abidjan Principles on the right to education: A practical tool to address global challenges to the provision of quality education for all to ensure future peaceful societies and life on earth

Proposal

Canada has well-developed public education systems, with fairly broad access and strong outcomes (Council of Ministers of Education Canada, 2001). However, the right to public education in Ontario is neither clearly defined, nor experienced equally: Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, children with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups are more likely to face barriers in achieving this right to the fullest extent possible (Canadian Coalition on the Rights of the Child, 2017).

This paper examines how a critical element – data - informs all stages of the policy process and consequently provides the foundation for a challenging and disruptive conversation on the public education system.

The Abidjan Principles provide a valuable framework against which to monitor and assess the state of public education in Ontario. This paper will share two examples of data gathering from People for Education’s current work that are informed by the Abidjan Principles:

People for Education has convened a multi-sector working group to develop measurable indicators for the right to education. In order to support the progressive realization of the right to education in Ontario, a set of measurable indicators is needed to track progress and identify areas requiring immediate policy solutions. This paper will share the draft indicators and solicit feedback from external stakeholders.

People for Education’s Annual Ontario School Survey has become a core component of the educational landscape in Ontario. Each year, more than 1200 Ontario principals participate in the survey, the results are used by the media, policy-makers, educators and researchers across the country. Our 2013-2019 data demonstrates there are clear inequities in regional distribution of resources within the public education system which are systematically disadvantaging student communities across the province.

People for Education’s role within the education policy landscape is as a research brokering organisation (Cooper and Shewchuk, 2015). Our work purposefully builds connections between key stakeholders in the K-12 education policy network or ‘policy microspaces’ in Ontario, Canada (Ball, 2016; Howlett, 2009; Winton and Brewer, 2014). We proactively construct spaces for dialogue on education policy that recognizes the ways policies move through local, regional, and national spaces (Ball, Maguire, and Braun, 2012; Winton, 2013). As a civil society organization, People for Education focuses specifically on data collection because of the ways they are used as tools of governance, accountability, and ultimately power, in education policy (Lingard, Martino, and Rezai-Rashti, 2013; Ozga, 2009). Similar to Fox’s (2001, 2016) work on transparency, participation and accountability (TPA) we contend that monitoring and advocacy by civil society groups such as NGOs are needed to influence policy through public engagement, knowledge mobilization, and accountability.

References

Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549566. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Canadian Coalition on the Rights of the Child. (2017). Discussion Paper to prepare for Canada’s 5th/6th Review Children’s Rights and Education: More than a Right to Go to School. Retrieved from http://rightsofchildren.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Discussion-Paper-on-Childrens-Rights-and-Education-2017.pdf

Cooper, A. & Shewchuk, S. (2015). Knowledge brokers in education: How intermediary organizations are bridging the gap between research, policy and practice internationally. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(118), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2355

Council of Ministers of Education Canada. (2001). The Development of Education in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/publications/lists/publications/attachments/34/ice46dev-ca.en.pdf

Fox, J. (2001). Vertically Integrated Policy Monitoring. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 616-627. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303015

Fox, J. (2016, December 1). Scaling accountability through vertically integrated civil society policy monitoring and advocacy. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/scaling-accountability-through-vertically-integrated-civil-society-policy-monitoring-and-advocacy

Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence‐based policy‐making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian public administration, 52(2), 153175.

Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Goli Rezai-Rashti (2013) Testing regimes,accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments, Journal of Education Policy, 28:5, 539-556.

Ozga, J. (2009) Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self‐evaluation, Journal of Education Policy, 24:2, 149-162.

Winton, S. (2013). How schools define success: The influence of local contexts on the meaning of success in three schools in Ontario, Canada. Comparative and International Education/Éducation Comparée et Internationale, 42(1), 5. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol42/iss1/5

Winton, S., & Brewer, C. A. (2014). People for Education: A critical policy history. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 10911109. DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2014.916005

Author

• Eloïse Tan, People for Education