|
Queen's Park disdains outdoor ed |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 02 November 2002 |
|
by Cameron Smith Toronto outdoor education is set up to be slashed, and for a reason that verges on duplicity, dressed as it is in the language of equality. Lawrence (Al) Rosen, the accountant appointed by the provincial government to investigate the financial affairs of the Toronto District School Board, has recommended that all the board’s residential outdoor centres be closed by December, unless costs are covered by user fees. The province ordered the investigation because the board refused to chop enough from its budget to avoid a deficit, claiming that the province was underfunding it. Rosen delivered what I'm sure the province wanted to hear. Toronto's trustees, he said, "have simply ignored the Government's concept of having education equality across the province." Then, on the subject of outdoor education, he said, "Most school boards in Ontario do not have an outdoor education program." Translation: Toronto the greedy wants what others can't get. Reality: The opportunities in Toronto for outdoor education are far fewer than they are elsewhere in the province. So, other school boards start off from a better position. The situation is unequal to Toronto's disadvantage. Talking about achieving equality by eliminating Toronto's program is a disreputable sham. To illustrate the difference in opportunity, let me describe our local school. It's called Sweet's Corners Elementary School. It's on a country road, and immediately behind it are some woods. A hop and a skip away is Lyndhurst Lake, and Singleton Lake, and Charleston Lake Provincial Park. The school doesn't need an outdoor education centre. It has the outdoors all around it. The same can be said for schools across rural and small-town Ontario. The outdoors is next door, not 100 kilometres away. What these schools need is a commitment to outdoor education from the province, so that it's not left up to the initiative of already overworked teachers to create time for outdoor teaching. However, Queen's Park has shown nothing but disdain for outdoor education. It even chopped environmental science from the high school curriculum three years ago. Yet, as the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario said in his report two years ago, we need outdoor education. "Without an appreciation of our natural heritage, new generations may not see the value of protecting it. Therefore, it is important that some of this education be provided through the school system." Given the number of students that it benefits, Toronto's program strikes me as modest. During a student's ten years of elementary schooling (from junior kindergarten to grade eight), all it provides are two visits for a day program and one week (during grade six or seven) in a residential centre. Each year, there are 65,000 students who attend a day program, and 20,000 students who spend a week in a residential setting. Rosen suggested that the residential centres be allowed to remain open if costs are covered by user fees. But that's ridiculous. The cost of operating the seven centres is about $5.6 million. User fees for the 20,000 students who attend would come to $280 each. None but the wealthy could afford that. He also suggested that next year all five of the board's day centres be closed, unless costs of about $2.78 million are covered by user fees. The fees would be $42.77 for each of the 65,000 students. That's still a hefty fee, especially for inner city students from low-income families. Rosen's mandate was to examine the budget, not to suggest changes to provincial funding priorities. That's going to fall to Mordechai Rozanski, head of the task force on school funding. But that doesn't mean Rosen had to be so compliant in furthering the current Queen's Park agenda. He could have voiced an opinion. He didn't have to accept that a cookie-cutter approach to education delivers equality. Or even quality. Maybe Rozanski will make that point. Let's hope so.
|
