Policy advocacy, inequity, and school fees and fundraising in Ontario, Canada

Winton, Sue; Milani, Michelle

doi:10.14507/epaa.25.2679

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While connecting arguments to dominant discourses runs the risk of upholding them, these findings also show that when dominant cultural discourses interact with individual policy cycles, the effects of advocacy efforts are unpredictable. People for Education used the same strategies in its efforts to change assessment wait times as it used in other policy change efforts during the IJEPL 14 (7) 2019Winton & Jervis Beyond Rhetoric: How Context Impacts Advocacy same time period in Ontario, yet the results differed in each case (Winton, 2018;Winton & Milani, 2017). That is, P4E constructed school fundraising and the practice of collecting school fees for basic and enhanced materials as problematic because they create and perpetuate inequities between and within school communities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A review (Winton, 2017) philanthropists, and businesses), transnational organizations, and networks influence policy and the ways they have successfully promoted privatization policies in education at the state, national, and international levels (e.g., Anderson & Donchik, 2016;Feuerstein, 2015). The literature on resistance to these policies is much smaller, although the number of studies is growing (e.g., Bocking, 2015;Cortez, 2013;Scott, 2011;Winton & Milani, 2017). Research on advocacy in special education is also limited (Burke & Goldman, 2016), with researchers often focusing on how parents advocate for supports for their own children (e.g., DeRoche, 2015;Trainor, 2010;Zaretsky, 2004).…”

Section: What Do We Know About Educational Advocacy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Laitsch¹,

MacKinnon²,

Young³

et al. 2019

IJEPL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of the International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership (IJEPL), Research in the Canadian Context, marks a significant milestone for the journal. Throughout our twelve-year history, we have sought to publish the best research in leadership, policy, and research use, allowing authors to decide the topics by dint of their research. While this model still serves as the foundation for IJEPL content, we decided to give researchers a chance to engage in deeper conversations by introducing special issues. In our first special issue, researchers discuss their work within the scope of education policy, leadership, and research use within the Canadian context. While many aspects of leadership, teaching, and learning can be seen as similar across contexts, there are also issues of particular concern within national, regional, provincial, or local spheres, particularly when looking at policy and system changes. The researchers featured in this issue provide an important look into education in Canada.PolicyIn the policy realm, Sue Winton and Lauren Jervis examine a 22-year campaign to change special education assessment policy in Ontario, examining how discourses dominant in the province enabled the government to leave the issue unresolved for decades. Issues of access and equity play out within a neoliberal context focused on individualism, meritocracy, and the reduced funding of public services. While Winton and Jervis highlight the tension between policy goals and ideological contexts, Jean-Vianney Auclair considers the place of policy dialogues within governmental frames, and the challenge of engaging in broadly applicable work within vertically structured governmental agencies. One often-touted way to move beyondResearch useWithin the scope of research use, Sarah L. Patten examines how socioeconomic status (SES) is defined and measured in Canada, the challenges in defining SES, and potential solutions specific to the Canadian context. In looking at knowledge mobilization, Joelle Rodway considers how formal coaches and informal social networks nserve to connect research, policy, and practice in Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health program.LeadershipTurning to leadership, contributing researchers explored the challenges involved in staff development, administrator preparation, and student outcomes. Keith Walker and Benjamin Kutsyuruba explore how educational administrators can support early career teachers to increase retention, and the somewhat haphazard policies and supports in place across Canada to bring administrators and new teachers together. Gregory Rodney MacKinnon, David Young, Sophie Paish, and Sue LeBel look at how one program in Nova Scotia conceptualizes professional growth, instructional leadership, and administrative effectiveness and the emerging needs of administrators to respond to issues of poverty, socioemotional health, and mental health, while also building community. This complex environment may mean expanding leadership preparation to include a broader consideration of well-being and community. Finally, Victoria Handford and Kenneth Leithwood look at the role school leaders play in improving student achievement in British Columbia, and the school district characteristics associated with improving student achievement.Taken together, the research in this special issue touches on many of the challenges in policy development, application, and leadership practice, and the myriad ways that research can be used to address these challenges. We hope you enjoy this first special issue of IJEPL!

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Do We Know About Educational Advocacy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Laitsch¹,

MacKinnon²,

Young³

et al. 2019

IJEPL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I collected handouts provided by speakers at some of the meetings. I also gathered official minutes from ward and school council meetings, and I reviewed media articles, reports, and the extant academic literature collected in my previous research (Winton, 2016; Winton & Milani, 2017).…”

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating Policy Layers of School Fundraising in Toronto, Ontario, Canada: An Institutional Ethnography

Winton

2018

Educational Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I report findings from an investigation into the politics and coordination of school fundraising in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Theoretically grounded in institutional ethnography and critical policy analysis, the study began from the standpoint of parents asked to give money to their children's school(s). I show how provincial and TDSB funding, parent involvement, fundraising, and school council policies organize parents' experience of school fundraising. I also explore how participating in fundraising enables parents to meet neoliberal expectations of a "good parent" and how through their efforts to secure advantages for their children, fundraising parents are accomplices in the privatization of public education. I conclude by discussing possibilities for intervention into the social organization of school fundraising in Toronto schools.

show abstract

“…A second important factor specific to exam price-setting is SLBs’ beliefs about fees and subsidization. Scholars have argued that school fees are a form of privatization used to make up for budgetary losses—such as state divestment—over time (Winton & Milani, 2017 ). In their study of school fees and fundraising, Winton and Milani ( 2017 ) explained the conceptual argument for school fees as one of privatization and neoliberalism.…”

Section: Resources and Beliefs: Variation In Policy Implementation Across Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin in the Game: A Policy Implementation Study of How School-Level Bureaucrats Set and Rationalize Advanced Placement Exam Fees for Low-Income Students

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of their strategies to increase college readiness and reduce educational inequalities, at least 29 states subsidize Advanced Placement (AP) exam fees for low-income students. However, while Michigan’s state-level policy subsidized low-income student exams to $5 per exam, we found wide-ranging fee structures at high schools—from $0 to $50. Through a lens of policy implementation theory and using an embedded case study approach, this study examined this disjuncture between the state and school policies using interview data from 33 school personnel—counselors, AP Coordinators, administrators—in 31 high schools and state personnel in Michigan; state policy artifacts; and publicly available school data. We identified three major challenges—many schools hedged and set higher fees because they were unsure how much the legislature would approve each year; the state subsidy did not account for additional exam costs (e.g., exam proctors) that were passed down to the student; and the policy as written lacked enforceability and accountability. Policymakers were largely unaware of the amount schools ultimately charged low-income students. In the presence of an ambiguous policy and constrained resources, school personnel relied on their personal perspectives on fees and behavior (e.g., the need to reduce moral hazard and increase “skin in the game”) to rationalize low-income students fees. Together, these findings help explain how low-income students pay vastly different AP exam fees depending on the high school they attend in Michigan—with some schools severely impeding low-income students’ college preparatory opportunities.

show abstract

Policy advocacy, inequity, and school fees and fundraising in Ontario, Canada

Cited by 13 publications

References 54 publications

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Coordinating Policy Layers of School Fundraising in Toronto, Ontario, Canada: An Institutional Ethnography

Skin in the Game: A Policy Implementation Study of How School-Level Bureaucrats Set and Rationalize Advanced Placement Exam Fees for Low-Income Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About