Public education systems in Canada face significant challenges relating to underfunding and the concomitant shift to privatization. Underinvestment and reliance on what are sometimes colloquially termed “alternative revenue streams” (e.g., public-private partnerships) erode the long-term sustainability of public education and compromise the day-to-day experience of schooling for students and their families.
As a part of the Public Education Exchange (PEX) research project, our team examined shifts in public funding that increased privatization in Ontario and Quebec. We contend that conditions of austerity force schools and districts to fundraise for themselves, often leading to unsustainable strategies, such as the increased reliance on international student tuition that we see particularly in the postsecondary context. We also argue that while the two provinces are quite different, a pattern is clear: as budgets shift away from full public funding and school districts become dependent on privatization, education systems in both provinces are becoming increasingly inequitable.
Ontario public education: a slow creep toward unsustainable public funding
In Ontario, education funding cuts are increasingly starving the public system of much-needed resources. Though the government claims to be making historically large investments in education, Ontario education funding has repeatedly failed to keep pace with inflation. A recent release of education ministry documents suggests that Ontario school boards are running broad deficits, relying on reserve funds to maintain operations. Many 7 of these boards have already depleted their resources or are expected to deplete them in the next few years.
The constrained budget has also led the government to increase class sizes and cut program grants. A further manifestation of the unsustainable funding model is the backlog of repairs that are needed to keep schools safe and healthy for students. The fallout from this funding shortage will create more stress on the system and will likely worsen classroom learning conditions in the immediate, medium, and long-term.
One of the ways the government is cutting education spending is by compelling schools to expand mandatory online learning. The Ontario secondary curriculum now requires that, unless they opt-out, students must graduate high school with a minimum of two online courses. The Ministry of Education has lowered the amount of funding for schools based on projections of online courses taken, meaning that the shift to mandatory online courses will lead to fewer actual funding dollars for in-person public school funding.
In addition, the provincial government has encouraged TVO to pursue marketization of their online learning modules, selling courses to other provinces and other countries. The move to online learning and the attendant prospect of curriculum sales may be largely motivated by a fiscal rationale, since there is significant research showing that online classes are unsustainable and unengaging, and fail to meet the needs of Ontario students, teachers and parents.
In a more overt move toward education privatization, the Ontario government has engaged in explicit transfers of public education funds to private interests. These private-public partnerships include restricting $12.5 million of education funding to be spent towards “ministry-approved” early reading screening tools from Pearson, Nelson and Acadience, and $15 million to go towards similarly approved “math skills digital tools” from a broad range of education corporations. The government also partnered with Rogers and Apple, purchasing internet and iPads for at-home learning during the COVID19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic also saw the repeated diversion of public education funds away from the schools. The 2021 COVID-19 Child Benefit and the 2022 Plan to Catch Up saw per-child payments to parents of $200-$250 and $400- $500 respectively, meant to be spent on costs associated with student learning during the pandemic. These were funds that could instead have been used to address clear concrete needs and deficiencies within the already underfunded public system. Direct-to-parent payments have also made those familiar with the American education system uneasy, as they could set the groundwork for a future transition to voucher-like programs.
These examples, among many others, indicate a pattern of moving public funds from the schools, where they are sorely needed, into the coffers of private for-profit companies, who bear no commitment to facilitating sustainable and quality public education.
Overall, patterns in Ontario suggest a drift away from adequately funded public education, with increases in alternative revenue streams and with funds being diverted through public-private partnerships and direct parental payments. Should this continue apace, school boards will likely be forced to fundraise (producing ongoing inequality in socioeconomically diverse neighbourhoods), seek international student tuition dollars, and rely on technology to replace in-person, personalized educator-student instruction.
Quebec public education: “l’école à trois vitesses”
Quebec’s education system has a more overt emphasis on privatization. Referred to as “L’école à trois-vitesses”, or a three-tiered education system, Quebec’s system is divided into regular public schools, selective public schools, and tax-subsidized privatized schools. The prevalence of high-school attendance at Quebec private schools has grown steadily over the years, comprising only 5 percent of students in 1970 but rising to 21 percent in 2022, with 39 percent of Montreal students and 42 percent of Quebec City students attending private schools. In addition to private schools, 20 percent of Quebec high-school students now attend selective school; specialized programs which choose students based on entry assessments including exams and auditions. These programs are exclusionary in nature, often declining admission to students who have not been adequately trained in the program’s specialty.
The three-tier system disadvantages students attending regular public schools, reproducing systems of inequity broadly reflective of social and class origin. Private and selective public schools offer enriched programs in diverse subjects, which significantly raise the likelihood of attending students being accepted at postsecondary institutions. Meanwhile, with a concentration of disadvantaged students not admitted to selective schools and unable to afford private schools, the ability of the public system to meet the needs of the students (and the political pressure to do so) is compromised. Looking at the impacts of this system, a study found that regular public school graduates attend college and university after graduation at rates of 49 percent and 15 percent respectively, while selective schools see these enrollment rates rise to 91 percent and 51 percent and private schools display even more drastic percentiles at 94 percent and 60 percent. The attendance of these schools is highly reflective of social origin and leads to the reproduction and intensification of class divisions.
This is worsened by the fact that Quebec private schools receive heavy subsidies from the provincial government. Though the official percentage of per-pupil funding at Quebec private schools is 60 percent of that provided to a public-school student, some experts argue that after accounting for funding discrepancies, the proportion of funding is much closer to 75 percent. As there are significant funding challenges in the Quebec public school system as-is, it is concerning that the government would choose to allocate such a large amount of public resources to private institutions, especially as they cut school property tax rates by approximately 13 percent between 2017 and 2022.
Simultaneously, the Quebec government has refused to cut funding to private schools, with Education Minister Bernard Drainville simply stating “it’s not in the cards.” Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair believes that the system is actually working as intended, writing that in Quebec “wealthier families, including politicians, keep a privileged system in place that gives their kids better schools, higher grades and better prospects,” noting that “Pauline Marois has been the only Quebec education minister that I know of to have sent their kids only to public school.”
Broadly speaking, the systemic stratification of the Quebec public system and consistent diversion of public funds towards private schooling defies democratic ideals for public education as a levelling ground where students are given the opportunity to pursue high-quality study regardless of social origin. Disinvesting in private schooling and returning committed funding to the public system would help Quebec to revitalize their struggling public schools.
Postsecondary funding and international student tuition as an alternative revenue stream
As noted in the discussion of elementary and secondary education in Ontario and Quebec, austerity and privatization create conditions where public institutions are forced to make drastic and often undesirable changes to continue operating on reduced budgets. A clear example of this phenomenon can be seen in postsecondary education, which has not received funding increases in well over a decade.
The lack of funding has translated to meaningful budgetary concerns in Ontario, described in a recent report as the lowest provincial transfers in higher education investments and a concomitant ban on raising tuition fees for in-province students. In Quebec, recent funding changes and tuition hikes for English institutions have called the long-term feasibility of public postsecondary study in the province into question, with McGill and Concordia arguing that these changes are financially unsustainable for their institutions.
Universities and colleges have subsidized the lack of government funding through tuition and other fee increases, public-private partnerships, the pursuit of philanthropic donations, and by extending the market for international student enrolment. International student tuition is not regulated in the same manner as domestic student tuition, allowing postsecondary schools to set fees for attendance. These fees are responsible for 100 percent of increased spending in Canadian postsecondary student tuition since 2010. In a particularly revealing insight into the situation, the Toronto Star reported in 2023 that Ontario international student college tuition from Indian students only had surpassed the entirety of provincial funding for Ontario colleges. The implications of this sort of funding strategy are wide-reaching. Incentivized by a lack of public funding, education institutions market their programs, and sell the idea of attending Canadian colleges and universities to students abroad. Recruiters often misrepresent the ease of finding accommodations and work when studying in Canada, and exaggerate the likelihood of attaining residency and citizenship after graduation. The aggressive expansion of this higher education fundraising strategy creates serious problems for social welfare. First, the exorbitant costs of living for international students lead to debt and mental health strain, as they struggle to find work and housing during their studies. Second, the students are incorrectly scapegoated for issues with housing availability and foodbank use—which are social ills that preceded them and that, ironically, are also caused by a lack of public investment.
These problems could have been avoided through adequate domestic funding of postsecondary institutions. Without the fiscal imperative, internationalization policies could have been implemented for reasons of pedagogical and cultural enrichment, to ensure the population of students has access to the supports they need to study, including housing and secure employment. The difficulty is that as colleges and universities become dependent on alternative revenue streams, they become the default mode of covering operating costs. This puts pressure on colleges and universities to expand revenue-raising programs in ways that are both unsustainable and exploitative.
International students are not the only out-of-town group to bear the costs of general disinvestment. Last year, Quebec announced a tuition increase for all out-of-province Canadian students, aiming to fundraise for French-language postsecondary programs within the province. Students from other provinces now need to pay $12,000 per year in tuition, a 33 percent hike in fees. Effects of this fundraising program have been catastrophic, triggering significant drops in enrollment at Quebec institutions, with Concordia University reporting a 28 percent decrease in new students this year, and McGill University projecting losses of $91 million due to the changes.
In January 2024, the Canadian government responded to problems in health care and housing by capping international student enrollment nationwide, vastly reducing revenues for schools that have become reliant on international student tuition to compensate for the gaps in public funding. While this legislation interrupts an unsustainable method of funding Canadian postsecondary education, it fails to draw public attention directly to the fiscal constraints at the provincial level that produced this unsustainable policy; it also places the duty of funding these programs back onto the provinces, putting programs in jeopardy in provinces where funding remains inadequate. In the Ontario context, for example, the government announced funding support in response to the international student cap and general funding struggles, but this additional funding still does not adequately address the deficits that occur as a function of long-term, persistent funding shortfalls. In Quebec, further recent cuts suggest the government is not enthusiastic about addressing funding shortfalls in postsecondary education.
Sustainability
The current difficulties in the postsecondary landscape serve as a cautionary example of unsustainable shifts in public education funding: underfunding undermines the long-term health of a quality school system accessible to all. Stop-gaps and band-aids will not fix these problems in the long run. Instead, in our roles as members of the Public Education Exchange, we argue that there is a need to recognize and commit to two basic principles: 1) quality public education is a necessary societal good that should be equally accessible for all young 10 people; and 2) funding should be adequate to the responsibility of maintaining the inheritance of strong education systems from one generation to the next.
Fiscal sustainability is not merely a matter of dollars and cents. Systemic underfunding destroys confidence in public education. The critiques that emerge from a system in financial stress can be seen in discussions of public healthcare, which is frequently criticized for long wait times and a lack of staffing, opening the door for arguments for a two-tiered public-private system. The neglect of public schools will inevitably breed resentment that public education “doesn’t work,” inviting further dismantling of the public offering in favour of private, privileged (and thereby exclusionary) schools. In truth, any public system requires generous public support to function as intended.
Private schools and education businesses are keen to develop profitable markets in education. They offer temporarily low-cost “solutions” for the educational problems that are caused by underfunding. But the delegation of public responsibilities to private interests is not a low-cost strategy long-term, as these companies are wont to raise prices in service of their bottom lines. This has the effect of degrading the quality and equity of public educational institutions over time. As such, we encourage educational stakeholders in Ontario and Quebec to hold governments accountable for sustainable funding, protecting these institutions against the dangers of austerity and privatization, in recognition of their vested responsibility to sustain these goods for current and future generations.
