FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RURAL SCHOOLS IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR: IS THE "VIRTUAL SCHOOL" THE WAY TO GO?

Dennis M. Mulcahy
Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland

Introduction

    On August 19, 1999, Premier Brian Tobin and Education Minister Judy Foote held a joint press conference to announce the creation of a ministerial panel on the delivery of education in the classroom. Despite having already spent millions of dollars on a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary and Secondary Education (1991/92), a Royal Commission Secretariat (1994/95), and an extensive province-wide Consultation Process in 1996/97, there is still a need, apparently, for further study and consultation before educational reform can go forward.

At the press conference the Premier stated that the creation of the panel is in response to the "debate" this past spring over teacher allocations. "Outrage" might be the more appropriate term to describe the reactions of parents and educators to the impact of the persistent and harmful cutting of teachers from rural schools. Over a two-year period (1996/97 to 1998/99), 648 teachers have been cut from the education system. Rural communities and rural schools have absorbed the majority of these cuts.

The government has justified the reduction in the teaching force on the basis of enrolment declines. In that same two-year period, the province's K-12 enrolment declined by 8,804 students. Although the decline in enrolment has been a province-wide phenomenon, it is the rural areas of the province that are most severely affected when teacher allocations are automatically reduced as enrolment declines. For example, from 1995/96 to 1998/99 District # 10, a predominately urban district, saw its enrolment decline by 7%. During that same period District # 7, a rural district experienced an enrolment decline of 17.6%.

Rural schools are, generally, considerably smaller than urban schools. The average urban school in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1998/99 had an enrolment of 413 students. The average rural school's enrolment in that year was considerably less at just 180 students. In a larger urban school the loss of one or two teachers may or may not be a serious matter; in the smaller rural school the loss of just one teacher may seriously undermine the ability of the school to continue offering even a minimal, bare bones curriculum. After several years of cutbacks and an admirable effort to maintain quality education, rural educators feel they have nothing left to give or to cut.

There is a fundamental problem with the unfair ways resources and funding are allocated to the province's schools. A single formula for allocating teachers works equitably and fairly well if all the schools being resourced are of comparable size and have a student population that is more or less homogeneous. However, if some schools within a system are considerably smaller than others and/or have a student population that differs from the norm in some significant way, then rigidly applying a formula will discriminate unfairly against the children attending these smaller, more diverse schools. That is why, in almost all jurisdictions, special provision is made for allocating resources to smaller schools and schools with special populations.

The "debate," as the premier referred to it, occurred because the current teacher allocation formula was being applied blindly across the system without any consideration being given to the uniqueness of the rural context and the preponderance of smaller schools in that context. Districts and schools were assigned teachers strictly on the basis of enrolment figures. The expressed "outrage" was generated when rural parents and educators realized that these latest teacher cuts would decimate the limited educational programs still available to their children.

Some (not all) of those small schools that had been granted "necessarily existent" status fared a little better (but not by much) than those small schools that did not gain this designation. However, as I pointed out in the last issue of the Small Schools Newsletter, the criteria used in this province for designating a school as "small" for the purposes of additional resource allocation needs revising.

We are a province of small schools. Sixty-four per cent of our schools have fewer than 300 students; 43% have fewer than 200. In all other educational jurisdictions that I am aware of these schools would be considered "small" and would qualify for additional resource allocation. Not only did the application of a single formula discriminate against most of our rural schools, but so too did the restrictive criteria for designating a school as "small."

Typical of the anger and concern expressed by rural parents and educators was a "Telegram Forum" article written by Agnes Loveridge, a teacher/guidance counsellor/parent at Buchans Public School. In "Teacher cuts hurts small schools," Ms. Loveridge writes:

After detailing some of the realities of teaching and learning in small rural schools and the mounting frustrations of rural educators in the struggle for quality education for rural children, Ms. Loveridge concludes with this accusation:

There are two serious impediments to the development of education in rural communities. One of these emerged in the sixties and the other is of more recent origin but is based on an educational perspective developed in the twenties.

The Urban Mindset and the Rural School "Problem"

In 1967 and 1968 Dr. Philip Warren released the two-volume Report of the Royal Commission on Education and Youth. Of the twenty-four "major recommendations" of that report only one spoke specifically of rural schooling. Recommendation 3 in volume one stated:

The Commission Report paints a rather dismal picture of rural education and identifies the major source of the problems with rural schools as their size. The solution to the problem was to make them more like urban schools, i.e. bigger. This could be achieved through a process of closure and consolidation.

Although it may not have been the intention of this Commission Report, its publication marks a change in thinking regarding education and schooling in Newfoundland. As happened in other areas of the culture and life there was an official turning away in education from the rural nature of our province. The intention was to develop a modern, progressive, professional and standardized education system and this required, it was thought, larger schools. A major closure and consolidation effort was initiated and many small community schools were closed.

Although the majority of the schools in the province continued to be rural and small, there was a tendency on the part of many educational leaders, politicians and bureaucrats in this province to ignore the unique rural characteristics of our school system. There developed what I refer to as the urban mindset in education. This mindset tended to think only in terms of larger and standardized urban schools. The continued existence of small schools and the necessity of combining grade levels were perceived as unfortunate and problematic. For some the fact that we still had small schools was even a source of some embarrassment and shame.

This urban mindset led to the creation of educational policies, curricula, teacher education programs, professional development initiatives and teacher allocation formulas that did not adequately reflect these rural realities. There was a tendency to act as if small rural schools had ceased to exist.

Small rural schools were officially rediscovered by Frank Riggs in 1987. In his Small Schools Study Project: Final Report, Riggs alerted the province to the fact that we still had small schools and that educators in those schools felt terribly isolated and disenfranchised from the educational mainstream. In that report Riggs also reminded the educational community of the unique characteristics of rural schools. They tend to be smaller, more diverse in terms of configuration, and more distant from each other than schools in urban areas. In addition rural schools are very meaningful and important to their communities. These characteristics present unique educational opportunities as well as challenges.

Despite recommendations to be more responsive in reports such as The Small Schools Study Project: Final Report; Our Children Our Future; and Learning and Teaching in Multi-grade classrooms, little has changed in the urban oriented mindset that continues to dominate educational planning in this province. (How else might we account for the "debate" about teacher allocations?) This mindset tends to see rural schools as distant or remote "problems" that must be solved. In point of fact the real problem lies in the limited perspective of some urban based bureaucrats, many of whom, ironically, happen to be former ruralites.

The Cult of Efficiency

A second problem that is hampering the progress of genuine educational reform in all areas of the province is the manner in which our educational leaders and planners have been taken over by the "cult of efficiency" (Callahan, 1962). Frederick Taylor would be proud of our current generation of scientific managers and corporate "wannabes." Armed with calculators, tape measures, stop watches and odometers, educational bureaucrats have spend the last several years going around the province timing, measuring, calculating, and quantifying every aspect of the school system.

The primary goal has been to make maximum use of space, equipment, transportation and personnel. With little regard for the practical realities of schooling, or the quality of the living and working conditions of students or educators, efficiencies have been pursued and achieved in a most single-minded fashion. The Minister of Education takes great pride in what has been achieved:

Efficiencies have been achieved at the District level by having one person now doing the work previously done by two or three. Efficiencies have been achieved by building new schools that are cramped and with little regard for any aesthetic considerations. Efficiencies have been achieved by creating overcrowded conditions in schools, classrooms, cafeterias, and on busses. Efficiencies have been achieved by making bus runs longer and creating schedules that are a nightmare for parents and school administrators. Other than the Minister, few people seem impressed with our leaner and meaner educational system. The expectation and the hope were for improved quality, not greater efficiency at the cost of that quality.

Ministerial Panel on the Delivery of Education in Classroom

According to the government press release of August 19, 1999, the ministerial panel has been created in response to the expressed concerns of parents and educators. The purpose of this panel is to investigate and make recommendations on the allocation of teachers throughout the province and the breadth and depth of the province's curriculum. Throughout its deliberations the panel will focus on three specific issues: "programming, delivery, and resource supporting."

Programming

The most important and surely the most challenging and potentially contentious issue that the Panel has to deal with is the fundamental curriculum question: What should rural schools teach? The Panel was created because it has become abundantly clear that our smaller rural schools cannot offer the current prescribed program of studies that can quite easily be accommodated in our larger urban schools.

As I indicated above, rural educators have done an admirable job over the years of finding creative and innovative ways of providing their students with as rich a program as possible. They have done this without clear direction or guidelines from the Department of Education. Their school-based efforts have been supplemented in some areas with distance education courses. However, we are at the point now where a genuine curriculum crisis exists in our rural schools.

In the government press release, Premier Tobin has stated that,

To live up to this commitment the government must develop a clear policy regarding the educational provision for rural schools. This policy has to define clearly the educational experiences that will be provided for all children of the province regardless of the size or location of the school they attend. Programming cannot be guaranteed just to those students who happen to attend schools officially designated "small" and "necessarily existent." (The current criteria for designating a school as small serves more an economic and political function than an educational one.)

The challenge for the Ministerial Panel will be determining the nature of those educational experiences that will be guaranteed to all students. What does a "balanced" and "high quality" educational program look like? What kinds of experiences must be included? More importantly, who will decide the nature of that program? "Balanced" and "high quality" are inherently value laden terms, thus highly contentious. Developing school programs is not simply a technical or scientific exercise. The process is fundamentally a political one always reflecting the values and assumptions of those empowered to make the decisions.

To come to terms with what is admittedly a very difficult challenge, I think the Panel should liberate itself from traditional approaches to curriculum planning. In the past we have always tended to think in terms of individual subjects and courses. Curriculum development usually means trying to decide what subjects and courses to add to or drop from the program of studies. Invariably, the curriculum expands and, as many teachers have pointed out, becomes overcrowded. Many critics describe this current curriculum as "a mile wide and an inch deep." Quantity has replaced quality; depth has been replaced with shallowness.

Programs and courses are also added as a way to respond to the diversity of students in our classrooms. Thus, we may have as many as three levels of math or English being offered in a school. Changing our pedagogy may in fact be a better and more responsive approach to diversity than adding yet another level of courses.

It is interesting to note that there is a growing rejection of these traditional curriculum notions in many places. Educators and parents are starting to realize that less may, in fact, be more when it comes to education and curriculum. To do a few things really well may be much better and more effective than to do many things poorly. Ted Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools is but one example of new ways of thinking about curriculum and education that may provide alternative ways of ensuring high quality education in our small rural schools.

Small schools are unique places and require unique educational ideas. We need to liberate ourselves from our traditional ways of thinking about curriculum as we attempt to respond to the current educational dilemma.

I have deliberately used the phase "educational experiences" in my comments above because I believe we have to stop thinking of programs only in terms of separate subjects and individual courses. We have to use our imagination and ingenuity. There are innovative ways of achieving the educational goals and aspirations we have for our children and youth; and there are alternative ways of responding to student diversity. But we will make no progress if we do not change our educational paradigm.

Part of the paradigm shift that is needed is a move away from the notion that the curriculum has to be standardized for the whole province or standardized for all rural schools. When faced with diversity (and diversity is one of the defining characteristics of rural schooling) the only truly useful response is flexibility and adaptation. The "one size fits all approach" is quite counterproductive and even harmful.

One other comment might be made on this point. It is the parents and educators of rural Newfoundland and Labrador who must take the lead in defining what should be taught in their communities and schools. They must make their ideas and views known to the Panel; and the Panel must heed what these folks have to say.

The Delivery of Education in the Classroom

The second focus of the Ministerial Panel's investigations is "the delivery of education in the classroom." It is interesting to note, however, that in all four of the Panel's "Terms of Reference" there is some reference to "the delivery of education." Is this an indication that the primary focus of their work is on "delivery?" I hope not. I think the primary focus should be on curriculum. What kinds of educational experiences do rural parents consider essential to their children's growth and development as human beings? Discussion of how to deliver that program should follow from that.

If curriculum isn't the primary focus, the panel risks falling into the trap of simply investigating those aspects of the urban curriculum that can be "delivered" or transmitted to the rural school. The opportunity to develop a rural education program which is unique and responsive to rural needs and aspirations and which fits the unique characteristics of small schools may be lost.

Earlier in this essay I quoted from the August 19, 1999 press conference, the Premier's commitment that all children, "regardless of where they live, have access (my emphasis) to a balanced and high quality education." What are we to understand by "access?"

The majority of students in this province gain access to educational programs by having to ride the school bus. Many rural students currently spend up to two hours a day riding to and from school. Is this part of what is meant by the government's commitment to "access to quality education?" Although many people seem to think we have consolidated schools as far as we can or dare, this isn't the case. There are still visions of rural "super schools" being entertained by some educational planners as a way of providing efficient access to "quality educational programs."

Another type of access being availed of by some rural students in this province is the old bursary program. Although not used nearly as much as it once was, there are still a number of students who leave their home communities and spend the week boarding and going to school in another community. Is there any thought being given to revitalizing this program as a way of providing access to programming for rural students? Should this be an enhanced option for those students who might like to try it?

Distance Education and Multiage Pedagogy

The overwhelming majority of students in this province have education "delivered" to them, once they are in school, in a very traditional manner. They are grouped by grade level and have an actual teacher present in the classroom. Rural students, on the other hand, have always had access to alternative approaches to learning and teaching. The Ministerial Panel has identified Distance/TeleLearning and Multi-grade/Multiage as possible alternative methods of delivery for small rural schools.

It is a long-standing tradition in rural schools to have students of more than one grade level in a single classroom. In the old one-room schools, students of all ages and grade levels learned together. As schools became larger the number of grade levels combined in a single room decreased; however, in this province, as in most other rural places, this alternative organizational survived and continues to this day. Declining enrolments over the last several years have created the necessity of going back to this traditional rural practice. For some schools it means increasing the number of multi-grade classrooms and the number of grade levels in such classrooms.

Although we have always had classrooms with multiple grade levels, we have never accepted them as viable and hence never, officially at least, built up an expertise in this necessary aspect of small school pedagogy. In this province (as well as elsewhere) parents and teachers have been educated to think of this organizational structure as an inferior, backward, old-fashioned and ineffective approach to education. Regrettably, to this day some of our educational leaders continue to use the existence of this grouping practice as a way of convincing rural parents to close their small, community schools.

Ironically, grouping students of two and preferably three grade levels together in a single classroom is advocated by many parents, educators and researchers around the world as an ideal form of classroom organization. The extended time frame that parents, teachers and students have together and the presence of children of different ages and development levels facilitate the practice of a more responsive, child-centered pedagogy. An increasing body of research supports the viability and value of multiage classrooms if teachers are provided with the appropriate professional development and curricular support.

The traditional approach that was taken to multi-grade classrooms may be considered an alternative "method of delivery." Multiage education, however, is much more than that. It incorporates a very particular view of education, teaching and learning. (See "Digging Square Holes For Square Pegs" elsewhere in the Newsletter for an excellent overview of multiage).

If we are going to endorse multiage pedagogy in this province, that endorsement has to be informed by genuine understanding of the concept. There has to be, as well, a commitment from the Faculty of Education that teachers will be prepared during their pre-service education to implement multiage approaches and commitment from Department of Education that curricula will reflect the existence of multiage classrooms.

Taking Responsibility for One's Learning

Another long-standing tradition in rural schools is students having to take a fair degree of responsibility for their own learning. As part of my research on rural schooling I have had the chance to speak to many former students about their experiences of learning on their own and with the assistance of a distant educator. In the rural schools of the past, the one or two teachers in the school may have lacked the knowledge or the time to teach particular courses. In this situation, an individual student or sometimes a small group of students simply worked their way through the course materials and at the end of the year wrote the exam for the course. In these situations the teachers provided whatever help they could. To a much lesser extent this practice of independent study is still an occasional feature of some rural schools.

Bud Davidge, who attended a one-room school in Bay du Nord, shared with me some of his experiences with correspondence courses (" a course in a box" was Bud's term for the experience). Correspondence courses were the first efforts made by government to try and supplement the educational program that was offered in the province's rural schools. Building on the independent learning capability that was engendered in students by the very nature of the one- and two-room schools, teachers situated in St. John's developed courses for students in rural schools. Communication between students and teachers was through the mail via the coastal boats. As students completed assignments they were sent to St. John's for correction and evaluation and then sent back to the student.

The "School Car," the "School Broadcasts," and the "Travelling Library" were three other ways of trying to respond to the rural realities of schooling. The school car was a classroom on wheels converted from an old railway car. A teacher traveled the rails from one rural community to another spending a week or two in each one. While the car was in the community the children came to this "classroom on wheels." When it moved on the teacher left the children work to complete on their own until his return. An interesting aspect of this school car was that the teacher would often in the night-time provide basic education for the adults of the community.

The school broadcasts were intended to be a curriculum resource for the teacher in the classroom. They included dramatizations and readings from works of literature and also background materials for social studies. The programs were produced in St. John's and could be received by any school that had a radio and was within broadcast distance. Unfortunately, the further one got from St. John's the less reliable was the technology. (Plus ca change!)

The travelling library consisted of boxes of books, mostly fiction, that were sent by coastal boat to the various isolated communities around the province. In most small rural schools there was little reading material other than the text books. In most homes there would not be many books either. Consequently, the travelling library was a very important of educational enrichment for outport students.

Distance Education

In 1987 the Department of Education instituted a formal Distance Education Program in the province. In that first year 13 schools offered Math 1201. The program was offered via the facilities at Telemedicine. Today the distance program provides three advanced math courses and a calculus readiness course, two levels of physics and chemistry, and three French courses. Courses are transmitted to approximately 80 schools and 300 to 400 students. One recent change has seen the Districts take over responsibility for distance education.

I think it is clear that the Ministerial Panel is giving (as it should) careful and critical consideration to the evolving tele-communications technologies as methods for providing educational experiences and opportunities for students in small rural schools. The use of computers, the internet, on-line courses, interactive two-way video, and satellite communications systems have increased the possibilities and potential for making the size and location of a school irrelevant as far as its capacity to provide access to educational programming and resources.

However, there are a number of issues and questions that should be critically investigated. One of these is a cost benefit analysis of purchasing, implementing and maintaining the new technologies. Technology has become an enormous black hole into which an increasing amount of our educational budgets are disappearing. In recent years most schools have had to devote a considerable portion of their budgets either to purchase or upgrade their hardware or software. A change in one thing seems, invariably, to necessitate a change in something else.

Does it make economic sense to increase distance education or change its method of delivery? Are the costs justifiable in terms of the increased educational opportunities for all students? At present, a small percentage of rural students benefit from distance education, and these tend to be the academically more able students.

Another issue is the communications infrastructure that is required to support the more sophisticated forms of distance education or telelearning. Dennis Parsons, former Director of District # 2, claims that, "Technology in small rural schools is a myth." Despite the fact, says Mr. Parsons, that we have "more hardware than ever, computer networks in schools, good software, satellite dishes, [the] truth is, in small rural schools we don't have the phone lines, backbone system, bandwidth, money for equipment, training for staff or technical support." It is the smaller schools in the more remote regions of the province that could benefit the most from distance education; however, it is these regions that have the most challenges when it comes to telecommunications.

The primary focus of my research interest in distance education and telelearning is pedagogy. Within that general focus I am particularly interested in the kinds of human support that young learners require when they are working in an educational environment that is mediated through technology. Providing access to programs and courses via technology is not just a technical exercise. Just as in a classroom situation it isn't enough for a teacher to simply show up and lecture to the students or present a series of overheads, it isn't enough in a telelearning educational environment simply to have courses available through a machine and online. There is much more to education, teaching and learning than that.

It is crucial I believe that we make a necessary distinction between adults learning via distance education and children and youth learning via the same media. It is true that some young students are highly motivated, very independent, and quite capable of learning on their own. They are the same type of student that excelled in the one-room schools of the past.

But many young learners are not like that. Although academically capable, these learners need a human hand and voice to encourage, cajole and support their educational efforts. These young learners, and arguably they would be the majority of high-school students, need a great deal of the kind of engagement and interaction that is intrinsic to good teaching in the classroom. When young students are engaged in educational experiences mediated through technology they require human support in the school and at a distance.

One of the short-comings of the current approach to distance education in this province is that there is no formal pedagogical support for the student in the school. The model has depended on a sort of volunteerism on the part of the principal or a member of the school staff. Educators, who already have full and often overwhelming workloads, are expected to provide support for these students in addition to their assigned duties.

Although in most situations students have received some degree of support in this way, I don't think this kind of "hit or miss" approach is a very sound pedagogical practice. There are indications that the already demanding workload of rural teachers is going to increase. Understandably, they will be less able and less inclined to take on additional responsibility.

Therefore, if the provision of education in small rural schools in this province is going to depend on increased reliance on distance education via communications technologies, then we have to give considerable thought to the kinds of human support young learners will need in the school. This support has to be formalized as part of the official workload of one or more teachers in the school. It must also be factored in as one of the costs of implementing distance education.

Another issue that has to be considered thoroughly is the kind of human support students need from their teacher at a distance. Since 1987 a number of distance educators in this province have developed a great deal of understanding about the kinds of pedagogical help and encouragement young learners need if they are going to succeed in this leaning environment. They have developed an expertise that enables them to reach out via the technology to provide the necessary encouragement and support young learners need. These experienced distance educators understand that this is a unique learning environment; they also believe that distance teachers have to find ways to reach out to learners as good teachers do in face to face classrooms. If we are going to expand distance education, we have to select our distance educators with some care and be prepared to educate them not only in the effective use of the technology, but also the unique dynamics of interacting with students at a distance. Unfortunately, just as we seldom have provided professional development for teachers new to multiage, we are also seeing the same problems with the assigning of distance educators.

The co-chairs of the Ministerial Panel, Len Williams and Ron Sparkes were guests recently on CBC Radio Noon's Cross Talk program. They were taking calls from people interested in making comments and suggestions regarding the Panel's Activities. At one point in the program, Dr. Williams commented that a number of students they have spoken with are "less than enthusiastic" about their experiences with distance education. They would much prefer to have a live teacher in the classroom, he reported. He went on to say that, nevertheless, in his view, the "virtual school is the way to go." He then acknowledged that " a great deal of maturity is needed by students taking distance courses."

I don't know if Dr. Williams’ comment that "the virtual school is the way to go" is an indication that the Panel has already made up its mind on this issue. However, his comments on the student's "lack of enthusiasm" and the need for a "great deal of maturity" are worth noting.

Most of the adults I have spoken with about their experiences in distance education, regardless of their age or level of education, would prefer learning in a face to face encounter with a teacher and the other learners. Most of those who endorse distance education value its accessibility and convenience. Not having to travel all the way to a university or college site is high on their list of positives. Many people also value the asynchronous nature of distance learning which allows them the freedom to learn when they choose. This is why distance learning is very popular with people who actually live near the university but whose work or life style makes it difficult to attend classes in person. These adult advantages are perhaps not as meaningful for younger learners.

During the radio program Dr. Williams did not elaborate as to why the students whom the Panel spoke with were less than enthusiastic about their experiences with distance education. From my conversations with rural parents, educators and students, it is clear that one of the primary reasons for the frustration is the degree of independence demanded of rural students enrolled in distance courses. They have to take a great deal of responsibility for their own learning.

We do not make similar demands on students taking courses in traditional style classrooms, in urban or rural settings. Why do we assume that rural students can or should be able to manage on their own in this kind of technological learning environment? Why do we assume or demand a level of maturity of our rural distance education students that we do not of other students?

The fact is that many rural students cannot manage in this situation and many others find it very difficult, as would their urban counterparts. Investing a significant amount of money in a method of delivery that is accessible to only the more able and most mature students doesn't make much educational or economic sense, unless of course our educational philosophy is to "educate the best, ignore the rest."

I don't know if the virtual school is "the way to go." I do know that the existing and emerging communications technologies have great potential for enhancing the educational experiences of students in rural schools. But I firmly believe that we have to develop models of distance education and telelearning that serve the needs of all the students in the school, not just the few. A creative and imaginative use of information technologies will enable us to develop such models. But first we have to stop thinking in terms of discrete courses and start thinking in terms of mediated educational experiences reflecting a continuum or curricular outcomes.

There is one other issue that needs some critical attention. Inherent in many forms of distance education, regardless of the nature of the technology, is a particularly conservative educational ideological, the main tenet of which is the notion that education is something of a commodity that can be pre-packaged and transmitted or "delivered" to a learner. Whether that package arrives "in a box," via the coastal boat as in an earlier time, or emanates from a box that sits on a school desk and is linked to the internet, it is still what Friere (1976) describes as the "banking approach to education." All we have changed or updated is the technology.

If we really want to use the possibilities of the internet for education in rural places we have to incorporate a constructivist, critical and emancipatory view of education into our vision of distance education and telelearning. Then rural students, teachers and parents can make the process of education truly responsive to their needs and aspirations. As Friere (1976) writes,

Conclusion

Although it is not explicitly stated, there is no doubt that the primary focus of the Ministerial Panel is rural education and schooling. Rural parents, educators, students and other members of the community must take the opportunity offered by Dr. Williams and Dr. Sparkes to make their views known regarding the issues being investigated. The true rural education experts in this province do not live in or work out of St. John's. Those with the most knowledge and understanding of the issues are the people who live the reality of rural life and education on a daily basis. It is they who must take the responsibility for shaping the future of education in rural places. Get informed on the issues and voice your views.

After the Ministerial Panel finishes its work and presents its finding and recommendations, rural educators and parents must critically examine these and decide if indeed what is being suggested will improve the quality of education for their children.

 

---

End Notes

i See "Structuring the Educational System: A Report of the Ministerial Consultation Process." http://www.gov.nf.ca/publicat/educate2/educate2.htm For an analysis of the consultation process see also "Critical Perspectives on Educational Reform" (Mulcahy, 1999) in the Morning Watch\i0 (\b Vol. 27, Nos. 3-4) http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win99/mulcahy.htm

ii "Teachers, programs will be panel's focus," Evening Telegram\ (August 20, 1999).

iii Almost 1000 teachers have been cut since 1994/95 (Dept of Education Statistics, 1998/99).

iv Declining enrolment is not a new problem. The student population in the province has been in a \par serious decline since 1971/72. At that time there were 162,118 students. Since then we have lost approximately 2,500 students a year. Since 1991/92 the average decline has been 4,000 students. The lowest fertility rate in Canada has been a major influence in this decline, arguably, with the greatest impact in the rural areas. Since 1991/92, the social and economic conditions in rural Newfoundland have also had a major impact as many families have left.

v For example, in the US, schools with a significant student population with an "at risk" socio-economic profile would receive extra teaching and material resources. Many of our rural communities and schools would qualify for such assistance if they were situated in the US.

vi Small Schools Newsletter , (Vol. 12, No. 2 ).

vii Evening Telegram (May, 1999)

viii Warren. P.J. (1967/68) The Report of the Royal Commission on Education and Youth . St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

ix I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has said to me on learning of my interest in small schools, "Oh, do we still have small schools and multi-grade classrooms? I thought they all had been closed."

x Riggs, F. (1987) The Small Schools Study Project: Final Report . St. John's: Faculty of Education, MUN.

xi Williams, L. (1992) \i Our Children Our Future: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education. \i0 St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

xii Mulcahy, D.M. (1992) \i Learning and Teaching in Multi-grade Classrooms\i0 . St. John's: Faculty of Education, MUN.

xiii Callahan, R. (1962) The Cult of Efficiency . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

xiv Department of Education press release (August 19, 1999)

xv Ministerial Panel web site: http://www.edu.gov.nf.ca/panel/default.htm

xvi The Panel consists of Dr. Len Williams and Dr. Ron Sparkes. Research support is being provided by Dr. Robert Crocker. Dr. Williams headed up the Education Royal Commission of 1991/92; Dr Crocker was in charge of the Royal Commission Secretariat.

xvii Department of Education press release (August 19, 1999).

xviii This URL , http://www.essentialschools.org/ takes you to the CES national web site.

xix Terms of Reference

1. Examine current educational delivery model and consider alternate approaches;
2. Conduct consultations to ascertain views on appropriate methods for allocating teacher resources and supporting the delivery of education in the classroom;
3. Examine current research, allocation procedures used in other jurisdictions, and methods of delivery;
4. Recommend changes to program offerings and current method of allocating teachers, program delivery methods and issues associated with teacher training and professional development.

xx "Each day of the school year, about 80,000 students travel to and from school by school bus. Student busing is provided through a combination of district-owned buses and contracted services. During the 1995/96 school year, the cost to provide these services was $30,794,000 or an average of about $400.00 per student. This amount is almost triple the level of funding provided for instructional materials and equipment and triple the level of funding provided for maintenance of school buildings." Source: \i Structuring the Education System: A Consultation Paper for Educational Change in Newfoundland and Labrador http://www.gov.nf.ca/publicat/educate/busing.htm

xxi It may be worth noting, if only for historical purposes, that Recommendation 48 of the Warren Royal Commission Report stated: "We recommend that consideration be given to provision of school hostels and dormitories for pupils from very isolated areas."

xxii It should be noted that some individual school districts did some very good work in this area on a local level.

xxiii The most common example of this was with French.

xxiv Personal interview English Harbor West (1998). Bud also told me that at the senior high level he and several other students had to complete the math course on their own. Their teacher, the legendary "Teacher Tom Farrell," who had spent fifty years teaching in the one-room school, really wasn't capable at that point of providing the necessary instruction.

xxv For an excellent description of this aspect of rural education see, Noseworthy, R.E. (1997) The School Car: Bringing the Three R's to Newfoundland's Remote Railway Settlements. Whitborne, NF: R.P.N. Publishing.

xxvi These are excepts from an excellent presentation given by Mr. Parsons at the Small Schools Conference in St. Anthony, NF, this past summer.

xxvii Wednesday, October 20, 1999. When you stop and think about it, what kind of person, given an open choice, would actually prefer to learn or to teach in any other way?

xxix At least one rural principal suggested that I should look into the drop-out rate in distance education. It is the more able students, generally, who take distance courses. The fact that a number of these students are dropping out, is an indication that the model is somewhat flawed in its assumptions about the learners. His point was if the brighter students are finding it difficult how can we possibly extend it to less able students.

xxx Friere, P. (1976) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York: Continuum.