The education system in Ontario is undergoing a period of great change at the hands of the Mike Harris Government. I focus my attention on the Ontario-wide teachers walkout over the education reform bill, 160. The Harris Government notes soaring education costs and a declining education system. The government aims to modify education in Ontario, cutting costs in the process. The Onario teachers unions believe that bill 160 will harm the current education system and centralize education decision making power with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education. It my position that bill 160, if enacted, will give the Minister of Education and his bureaucracy profound and uncontested powers over Ontario's education system. The bill is also a covert attack on teachers unions. This is a highly public battle, fought by both sides thorough glossy television adds and newspaper spreads.

Virtually all teachers in Ontario went on a two week strike. This strike was not a standard labor depute between a local union and school board. It was an across the board walkout, in protest of bill 160, 1997, the Education Quality Improvement Act.

The strike had the effect of closing almost every school in Ontario. It interrupted the education of millions of students, also creating child care problems for parents with younger children. The teachers actions are very extreme. It is therefore important to examine the events that lead up to this confrontation.

According to the 1996 Business Plan of the Ministry of Education "...the system is broken: neither parents nor the public is sure about which part of the education system is accountable for what.... too much money is spent on administration an not enough in the classroom" The plans critique of the education system places a heavy focus on solving school board problems through cutting costs.

There is strong disagreement with the position of the Government by many in the education community. Trustees of the London Board of Education do not believe that the education system is broken. They state that: "The system is not broken, nor is it perfect, but for more than 150 years, local school boards have been changing to meet local requirements and government directions."

Ontario New Democrats view the Harris government reforms to education in a more sinister manner. According to NDP MPP, and former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd, expressed during an address to striking teachers, the governments objective in education reform is simply to cut funding from the education budget. She says the NDP will try all that it can to stall bill 160 in the legislature because the bill, according to Boyd, will irreparably damage public education in Ontario.

There is always considerable debate around proposed reforms to education and on the motives behind those reforms. Several reports on education reform have been produced lately. They include the Sweeney task force on school board reduction, established in February 1995, during the Bob Ray NDP government. Recently released is the Crombie "Who does What" education sub-panel report, which echoes many of the recommendations put forth in the Sweeney report. Recommendations such as the Crombie and the Sweeney panels shed light on the Harris governments approach toward education. When it comes to school board reform, several goals are outlined in the Crombie report. Among its many points, the fiscal "affordability" of Education is a priority. Economic management is a point stressed in both the Crombie panel and by the Ministry of Education and Training in its 1996 Business Plan document.

Teachers unions are major players in the Ontario education system. The Harris government has done its research on unions. Leon Paroian was appointed by Premier Mike Harris and former Education Minister John Snobelen to review the role of teachers unions in Ontario. His mandate was to review the efficiency and the effectiveness of the school board and the teacher collective bargaining process. His recommendations formed the rational for the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, also known as Bill 100. Peroian takes a highly critical look at the unions, and among his recommendations, he stresses the need for the government to curtail union powers.

Today, Bill 160 is arguably the result of these developments in Education. The Ministry of Education, headed by Minister David Johnson believes the legislation is beneficial and poses no harm. Johnson says the illegal strike by teachers in the publicly-funded elementary and secondary school system is an unnecessary threat and inconvenience to children and parents. The government claims that Ontario's education system needs reform. The government sites disproportional tax hikes by local school boards, yet no corresponding boost in test scores, which translate into educational results. The Harris government defends Bill 160. They see it as a way to allow teachers to spend more time in the classroom, to take away a school boards power to increase local property taxes, to enlist professionals who "complement" teachers in schools, and to raise the quality of education while reducing waste and duplication in the system to get a better value on education tax dollars.

The teachers take a different view on bill 160. They see it as a tool by which the Harris Government can extract over $1 billion from the education budget. Teachers see the bill as the means to eliminate local decision-making about local educational programs, centralizing these with the Ministry of Education. The bill threatens to replace certified teachers with non-teachers. It provides for this through a section allowing for the employment of non-qualified teachers to assist in special tasks such as Music, Arts, and Physical Education. Teachers fear this will proliferate until teachers are de-professionalized. A significant aspect of the bill is its transfer of powers to the office of the Minister of Education. Powers previously delegated to elected trustees, if the bill is enacted, will now rest with the Minister through cabinet decisions and orders in council. Such powers include teacher contract negotiations, the right to strike, class room size negotiations and the length of the school day and school year. Of paramount issue are the huge regulatory powers afforded a Minister. It is no surprise that teachers and citizens have reason to be alarmed about this bill. Reading through Bill 160, I can verify many of the teachers objections for myself. There are elements in the bill which can be used to give the bureaucracy at the ministry of Education extraordinary power over education, should they choose to use and enforce these elements. Omnibus legislation is quite complicated, and has the potential to quietly pass many changes, that may have significant ramifications in the future.