The federal government really only controls K12 education on First Nations reserves, where they are doing an abominable job. The feds have a small level of influence on post-secondary education. The question remains, should education activists be really concerned about the non-school board level of municipal government - the mayoralty and the composition of the city council and the rural county council equivalents.?

 

In the USA some cities have been granted ‘Mayoral Control’ for example NYC, Chicago, DC and many small cities basically abolishing school boards on the temporary permission of the state governments. In the UK especially England it is hard to understand where city government stops and LEA’s Local Education Authorities, the school board replacement , begins, In Canada, the lines have been fairly clear, although schools and cities often enter voluntary agreements to share pools and playing fields, and school boards are consulted regarding new housing developments as to whether local schools can handle the capacity, -there is not much otherwise. 

 

We have recently seen two examples of Canadian big cities holding municipal elections. In the Vancouver case a high stakes general election featuring a Mayoralty contest between Ken Sim, a center right candidate and Kennedy Stewart a center left incumbent, in which Sim was the winner and became the first person of Chinese ancestry to lead a major city. We also just watched a major battle for Mayor in a Toronto byelection, where Olivia Chow, a former NDP MP also a former city councilor, and former trustee,  prevailed in a hard fought city wide campaign, oddly enough, becoming the first immigrant Chinese woman to lead a major Canadian city. 

 

Toronto is unique among major cities in the democratic world in its denial of party politics, at least on the surface, while behind the scenes big name operatives for the three major parties, are heavily involved in candidate recruitment, fundraising, campaign management, advisors and ultimately endorsements under the pretense that this is all “personal” and not party politics. Every city in the USA, Europe, Australia NZ, is fought over with party politics. 

 

Vancouver has had party politics since at least the formation of the CCF, the NDP parent in 1932. For many years the “ Non Partisan Association” NPA represented the political right largely meaning real estate, developer and landlord interests and the “Committee of Progressive Electors” COPE represented the political left, meaning the NDP, and further left elements, on the blue collar east side. COPE was somewhat superseded by Vision Vancover which straddled the center, and recently, the left has splintered amongst COPE, VV, Greens, a party called One City, and the Mayor Stewart”s recent vehicle, the Forward Party. Montreal, and sometimes Winnipeg have made use of municipal parties to clarify elections. 

 

Montreal presently has a left of center Mayor, Valerie Plante, of the Project Montreal party, a social democratic grouping, while the main opposition on council is from Ensemble Montreal which claims to be centrist .There are 3 other minor parties that also have councilors.

 

The ferocity with which conservatives, Liberals, and their developer, landlord backers went after Olivia Chow, who ended up winning a combination of the traditional inner city NDP areas plus five of six, heavily Chinese wards in Scarborough and North York, was only exceeded by the bone headed stupidity of running 3 well known Liberals, 2 conservatives and 1 Lib/Con hybrid, thus splintering the anti-Chow vote 6 ways. 

 

Toronto really needs to develop a party system of politics, probably on the Vancouver or Montreal model. Call them “teams” if parties are still too jolting for Toronto. The left can be “Team Progressive” or reasonable facsimile. The right can choose their own name of a similar type. The candidates who pass muster, would be endorsed by Toronto Progressive Team TPT for example, much the way Labour Council now endorses, or teachers’ unions endorse trustee candidates. 

 

So again, why should education activists care very much, beyond their civic duty? Americans have known since their famous “Coleman Report” that poverty is the primary factor in educational success. The work of Professor emeritus David Berliner, U Arizona can explain why this is the case. Mayors, and city councilors influence the level of poverty within their jurisdictions primarily through housing policy, but such things as public transit, libraries, daycare, and income support policies, even parks. 

 

The Mayor of Toronto is a powerful political position - more important than 8/10 provincial premiers, and probably 3rd in Ontario after Trudeau and Ford. A powerful mayor has political coattails that can change the composition of city council, the school board, and even affect results of senior governments elections. Nobody is happier about Chow’s win than Jagmeet Singh and Marit Stiles, and for good reason. 

 

If we shift back to Vancouver, Mayor Ken Sim’s “A Better Community” ABC party swept into power not only taking all but one city council seat but, in its wake, all but two of the Vancouver schools trustees, creating a board that not only has conservative instincts but is woefully inexperienced as well, listening to poor advice to close schools just as the new Broadway Transit corridor from East Van running all the way to UBC, will create a housing boom, and thus new demand for school spaces. A similar boom on SE Marine Drive’s River District will soon drive increased demand for schools in South Vancouver.  

 

In the end, it’s all connected, the poverty, the supports for children and young people, the political power centers with overlapping knock on effects. Some local teachers’ unions had the foresight to endorse Chow in the mayor’s race. More should be involved next time.