Neo-Conservatism Perspective

Education is an essential element and a need of any society, and education is the vehicle that drives knowledge, and the self-preservation that every member of society needs for integration. The wealth of a country is assessed because of resourceful human beings that the country has rather than the physical and material wealth. Education can be formal or informal, however, right education teaches one how to analyze information and to utilize this acquired knowledge for social and self-development. No wonder, Landes (1980) emphasized that the heart of the process of industrialization and economic development is intellectual: it consists in the acquisition and application of a corpus of knowledge concerning techniques]. Knowledge is viewed as a product of a person’s perspective influenced by ideologies. Neoconservatism as an ideology has impacted various nodes of thoughts within education. The Alberta Educational planning and policy secretariat and the report branch has the responsibility to plan, recommend and establish a direction for all divisions with the education division.

What then is the definition of neo-conservatism? Jones (1990) defines neoconservatism as “a rather unusual synthesis of socio-political ideas drawn from both traditional conservative ideology and classical liberal ideology of the 19th century.” Neoconservatism can either be traditional conservative thought or classical liberal thought under a political philosophy which exist in a country. From my point of view or understanding, a neo-conservative can be someone whose politics are conservative or right-wing, and they believe strongly in the free market. They also think that their country should use its military power to become involved with other countries or they try to control problems in other countries. For example, during the George W. Bush regime when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 attack of Iraq. Moreover, neo-conservatives advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including peace through strength and they are known for promoting and adopting criticism for communism and for political radicalism.

However, Drury (2011) explained that “neoconservatism is a distinctly American brand of conservatism, which has replaced the Canadian conservatism we inherited from – a style of conservatism based on community, cooperation, obligation, moderation, caution, and suspicion of radical change.” Neo-conservatism is known in America and now we Canadians have copied that system and we have forgotten the cultures and the ways of that we inherited. The characteristically of the American kind of conservatism is thorough, aggressive, and violently competitive compared to the Canadian system. There are different reasons that may lead Canadians to embrace neoconservatism according to Drury (2011). Harper made it clear during the election of 2011 that his Canada will adopt America’s wars as her own. He showed Canadians as he hopes they will become under his guidance. Equally essential to the war effort is defunding Planned Parenthood and introducing income splitting. These measures will encourage women to stay at home and have more babies. In this way, they will serve the nation as factories for the production of the soldiers needed to make Canada a junior partner in America’s quest for empire. So far, there is every indication that Harper will keep his promise that Canada will be unrecognizable once he is done.

Neoconservatism is a multi-layered and complex education, in which opposing ideas, concepts, attitudes and principles coexist the diverse and contradictory ideas and recipes for solving the problems arising in the modern world put forward by different currents of the neoconservative movement, make it difficult to decide the consistent ideological and political groups and movements. Neoconservatism has not had any impact on education. Jones (1990), explained that “the centralized governmental decision-making is rejected by educators ascribing to neoconservative principles in favour of decentralized planning.” Also, some people claim that neoconservatives have caused the swing towards creationism and other moral values in education that were formerly viewed as archaic. Changes in the curriculum also reflect a veneration for tradition such as more conservative textbooks and the return to objective tests, have also been attributed to neoconservative elements. Jones (1990) explained that neoconservatives are perhaps the first cohesive group to have weathered the social-democratic storm aimed at establishing equality of condition in the late 1960s and early 1970s. neoconservatives believe inequalities motive people in a competitive market. In the educational sphere, neoconservatives view the equality of opportunity principle as providing for a meritocratic social order. Equality of condition, however, would only make for a disenchanted, lazy population. The anti -egalitarianism supported by neoconservatives of the 1980s was a reversal of the rhetoric delivered by social democrats of the 1970s. Equality of opportunity in education is a principle held by most political movements in Canada. Norm Globe claims that neoconservatives would prefer an elitist school system. In addition, neoconservatives see families as being overtaxed therefore forcing women to work outside the home. Taxation is blamed for women not being able to meet family responsibilities. According to Jones (1990), Nevitte and Gibbons found neoconservatives less willing to permit lesbians or homosexuals to teach in public schools, their right to teach was endorsed by nearly 70%.

According to Jones (1990), the planning and policy secretariat’s exclusive mandate is to highlight issues considered important to the Department of Education. Directly or indirectly, the planning policy secretariat affects what is defined as valuable knowledge for Alberta students, what types of hierarchy are legitimated in educational structures and what programs survive the test of objective criteria. In a bout of neoconservative furor, educators have been encouraged to suspend visionary reforms designed for most students. it is these neoconservatives who threaten to bring education back under the control of the privileged through, unjustifiable financial cutbacks and the political pressures that make it so hard to operate effectively. Neoconservatives have been able to jump on the bandwagon of popular issues to gain widespread support for their partisan views of how educational systems should function. For instance, taxes are a popular issue of debate; neoconservatives have advocated lower expenditures on education, taking advantage of the popular opinion that taxes are too high. The classical liberal component of neoconservative ideology has provided a basis for the support of free-market principles. Even in education, neoconservatives believe that free market of private schools would better serve a diverse society. For example, there is an argument that public schools are a monopoly and monopolies offer neither variety nor high quality. A marketplace must be created for education, with children and their parents as the choice–making consumers.

Therefore, the competition of education is relegated to a status of supply and demand similar to tangible products manufactured by factories. In studying Alberta Education policy documents, this view of competition for students and the use of more private schools as voiced by neoconservatives is supported. Neoconservative ideology has also supported decentralization of decision-making within the educational system. Like any broad policy guideline, the neoconservative call for less concentration on equalization and more on standards does not account for overwhelming obstacles faced by some social groups.

According to Wagner (1998), explained Premier Klein’s education policy changes have been widely interpreted as being very significant. The movement has fostered this view to some degree. The Three-Year business Plan itself states: the changes outlined in this plan alter substantially the character of the education system and ensure a bright future for our students. However, those who emphasize the dramatic nature of the changes are generally critical of them. There are both popular and academic sources that agree that Klein’s policies will alter substantially the character of the education system. Most of these critics see the government as beginning to privatize the education system, which, indeed, would be a substantial alteration of it. Privatization of education is seen to fit within the Klein government’s broader agenda of neo-liberal restructuring wherein the role of government in society is significantly reduced.

Officials of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and publications of that organization are a consistent source for the view that the education policy of the Klein government differs considerably from its predecessors and constitutes a major change.

According to Wagner (1998), high-level ATA officials alleged that the Klein government had launched an attack on education. In fact, in the view of the ATA’s president. The government’s actions are more than an attack on schools roles, teachers’ jobs and children’s futures – they are attacks on the basic tenets of democracy that are the backbone of this country.

This is clearly a plan to diminish, if not destroy, the public education system in this province. This is clearly a plan for a two-tiered or even a multi-tiered education system. This is clearly a plan to destroy the legacy passed on to us by our parents and grandparents. This is clearly a plan to create a situation that violates a basic tenet of democracy, which is equal opportunity for al1 children to realize their dreams, regardless of who their parents are. Furthermore, after referring to the purpose of charter schools as creating competition between schools and increasing choice for parents, they make the following comment about the Klein government’s bill to amend the School Act: ln this sense, Bill 19 in Alberta does represent a clear step towards the privatization of schooling provision and, ultimately. Differentiation among schools on the basis of parents’ ability to pay. Other academic writing has been more general in referring to the Klein government’s education policies. Wagner (1998) explained that Soucek and Pannu says that Klein’s policies could only be described as a vicious onslaught on Alberta schools. Those policies are leading to the progressive dismantling of the Alberta educational system. In their view, the Klein government has essentially an anti-educational agenda. Klein made the changes he did because he found that education was a vulnerable target, ripe for takeover and weakly defended. There are at least two themes that can be drawn from these comments. The first is that in some sense, education is under attack and that attack involves major changes to

Alberta’s education system. Something different is going on, something very negative in this view. In writing to defend Alberta’s education system from Klein’s attacks, the ATA’s president stated that the quality of education provided in today’s classroom is the best it has ever been. Although the government was making more changes at one time than usual, it seems to be the content of the changes, not the fact that they were done together. that concerns the critics cited above. The second major theme is that Klein’s education policies are leading to the privatization of the Alberta education system. The introduction of charter schools is most often cited as the beginning of privatization, even though charter schools are public schools. Wagner (1998), explained that after being re-elected in 1993. The Progressive Conservative government of Ralph Klein initiated an ambitious program of deficit-cutting and neo-liberal restructuring. Every government department was affected. The department of education had its budget cut and a number of significant changes were made in education policy. The number of school boards was drastically reduced, the provincial government assumed control of the tax base previously reserved for school boards, and charter schools were introduced for the first time in Canada. Other changes were also made. This gave some observers the impression that the Klein government was making a substantial change with the education policy of its predecessors.

Lastly, neoconservatism demonstrates that the Klein government’s education policy exhibits a large degree of continuity with the policy of previous PC governments. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the government of Peter Lougheed had begun to undertake new initiatives in many areas of education policy. These initiatives amounted to a notable break with the earlier pattern of education policy in the province. These initiatives set a direction for education policy that continued through the period of Don Getty’s premiership and culminated in the education policy changes of Ralph Klein’s government. Thus, there has. in fact, been a considerable degree of continuity in education policy from the Lougheed to the Klein period.

References

1. Drury, S. B. 2011. Humanist Perspectives. The Rise of Neoconservatism in Canada. Issue 177. Retrieved from https://humanistperspectives.org/issue177/drury.html
2. Landes, D. 1980. ‘The Creation of Knowledge and Technique: Today’s Task and Yesterday’s Experience’. Daedalus. 109
3. Jones, A.H. 1990. Neoconservative Ideology in Alberta Education Policy. The University of Alberta. Retrieved from https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/a4e62cd7-7c38-42ed-a2f4-d1a995164751
4. Wagner, M.G. 1998. The Progressive Conservative Government and Education Policy in Alberta: Leadership and Continuity. The University of Alberta. Retrieved from https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQD