Mireille Falardeau et Michel Loranger Le choix de stratégies ... - CSSE

Who Should Control Educational Policy—
Experts or the Public?
A Response to Levin, Riffel, and Young
Mark Holmes
hampton, new brunswick
I was pleased to receive the Levin, Riffel, and Young critique. It is a coherent
and succinct statement, reflecting well the arguments advanced by those opposed
to fundamental educational reform. The underlying assumptions of my argument
for encouraging what I termed MacIntyre schools are that there is large-scale and
inevitable dissatisfaction with the public schools, and that the common school is
obsolete.
Levin, Riffel, and Young (1993) claim “strong” support for public schools,
quoting Ontario data (p. 447). They claim that secondary schools, which are less
progressive, are more unpopular than are elementary schools (p. 448). And they
claim that progressive instructional methodologies are more effective than alternatives.
When the cited Livingstone, Hart, and Davie population was asked if it would
support or oppose a voucher system whereby “parents can then send the child to
any government approved school they choose,” 49% favoured the idea and 27%
opposed (1993, p. 10).
Levin, Riffel, and Young “do not find evidence” to support my claim that the
public wants more testing (p. 2). Province-wide testing, opposed by all parts of
the educational establishment, is now even more strongly supported by the
Ontario public (73% in favour) than it was two years ago (Livingstone, Hart, &
Davie, 1993, p. 13).
I would expect secondary schools to be generally less popular with parents and
students, for several reasons. The fact is that, according to Levin, Riffel, and
Young’s source, 46% (in 1992; 30% in 1990) believe elementary schools have
deteriorated over the last ten years; 39% (in 1990) that secondary schools have
deteriorated; 30% and 25% (in 1992), respectively, think the schools have improved
(Livingstone, Hart, & Davie, 1993, p. 13).
According to Levin, Riffel, and Young, I believe that “all problems of
schooling can be traced to . . . the dominance of a progressive educational
ideology” (p. 447). I made no such claim. My article arguing for a MacIntyre
school (certainly the antithesis of progressive pragmatism) was based on the
assumption that there can be no single acceptable school for all — whether it
follow MacIntyre, Dewey, Marx, or Adam Smith. I do believe that the prevalent
452 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 18:4 (1993)