The partial cancellation of compressions, which the politicians of the CAQ calls a “reinvestment” of 540 million in the Quebec school network is, in fact, an interesting reversal. Rather than fully assuming a change of course, the government frames this reinvestment as a response to a consultation, not as an admission of error.
This posture is politically calculated: explicitly recognizing an error would have too high a symbolic cost, especially after imposing significant compressions which initially, let us recall, “should not touch the services to students”.
Where will the 540 million go? 425 million go to the public network, 29 million to private schools and 86 million allow certain school service centers (CSS) to exceed the hiring ceiling set by Quebec.
Reassuring? Not so much …
The CAQ therefore attempts political balancing. It reassures parents and education workers by “reinjecting” funds. But it continues to fuel the story of the “too bureaucratic network” by demanding “administrative efforts” and strict controls.
The message I hear is “we give you money for students, but prove us that you are not ineffective”. I think of the pressure that CSS and directions live. Already, the announcement of compressions in the middle of the end of the school year was not exactly the idea of the century … The students are there, their needs are there. The government first imposed a brake stroke (compressions), then an accelerator (cancellation of compressions), all in the middle of summer, on the eve of the construction holidays.
They simply announce us to “carry out the hires necessary to meet their special needs”. The risk is that this “reinvestment”, although essential, is not enough to repair the damage already caused. Certain positions have been abolished, closed specialized groups, reassigned or unreachable professionals.
Millions subject
When it comes to education or health, we always speak of “administrative efforts”, “rigor”, “optimization”. But for other economic or technological projects (hello Saaqclic, Northvolt, Kings), public money flows to waves without as many reserves. When education requires resources-if only the bare minimum to function-the dominant discourse always suggests that it could “do better with less”, or at least “do better with what it has”.
It installs the idea that the education system would naturally be bureaucratic, poorly managed or unproductive, while the expectations that we have placed there have never been so heavy. But it must be remembered: this bureaucracy is the very state that created it. Successive reforms, results management, the logic of control and accountability increased the system. And today, education is criticized for being the exact product of what has been imposed on it. We assume a local ineffectiveness rather than substantial to structural political choices. We question the daily management of establishments, but not the chronic sub-financing or the contradictions between the objectives set by the government.
The government’s gesture is a partial decline under political constraint. He responds to the crisis he himself caused, without questioning the budgetary logic which is at the origin.
Public school is not a business where the workforce is adjusted according to supply and demand. These are students, routes, needs that require stability and predictability. This kind of room management only continues to break public confidence and exhaust the teams.
Courtesy photo
Shophika vaithyanathasarma
Doctoral student in Boston College education
