Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

The rationalization of neoliberalism in Ontarios public

education system, 19952000
Ranu Basu
Department of Geography, York University, N430 Ross Building, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3
Received 17 September 2003; received in revised form 20 February 2004

Abstract
The globalization of neo-liberal policy solutions to education problems has gained increasing dominance in recent years. In
Ontario, Canada the success of this ideological discourse, particularly during the past decade, has been hard to combat due to the
ideal message that it conveys to the general electorate, that is one based on eciency, accountability and equity of resources across
dierent school boards in the province. Despite protests from many activist groups (i.e. unions, educators, parent-groups) the
implementation of such policies has been largely successful. By tracking education policies, statements and events, newspaper
articles and other policy reports from 1995 to 2000, this paper seeks to understand the nature of its success during the early years of
restructuring. I argue that part of the success lies in understanding the techniques and strategies of implementation or the process of
rationalization. I argue that policies formulated at one spatial level operate quite dierently at another and the spatial disjunctures
that arise as a result of this process lead to the continued success of neo-liberal ideologies and inequalities in education.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Education; Neo-liberalism; Planning; Power; Public policy; Ontario

1. Introduction: the rise of neoliberalism in Ontario

According to planning theorist Bent Flyvbjerg, if one
were to take the ideals of the Enlightenment seriously one needs to rst understand the Enlightenment in
anti-Enlightenment terms. This distinction between the
principles of reason, morality and progress, how democracies should ideally function, versus a critical examination of how democracies function in reality is an
important one, but one that is not always easily empirically discernible. Dominant ideologies of what constitute a good society and what leads to good planning
serve to legitimize governing policy paradigms, where
legitimation can be dened as the process whereby those
in power gain acceptance for themselves in the eyes of
those who are governed by them (Scruton, 1996).
However, in order to gain acceptance, or to make people
believe that a decision is indeed justied, a necessary
part of legitimationrationalizationsor strategies

E-mail address: ranubasu@yorku.ca (R. Basu).

0016-7185/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.03.003

based on power, are presented as rationality (see Flyvbjerg, 1998). This paper examines the rationalization of
neoliberal discourse during a period of structural readjustment in Ontarios education system (19952000).
These changes are examined during the early years of
the Common Sense Revolution (CSR)a period of
signicant economic and political reform introduced by
Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government in
the 1990s. More specically, this paper traces how in the
slow and steady construction of a failing and inecient
public education system reason was fabricated as the
rationale behind the legitimation of neoliberal agendas.
The rationalization of restructuring was driven by a
perceived need to improve the eciency of the public
sector while cutting costs and simultaneously by the
need to increase educational standards, improve outcomes, and ensure accountability in order to remain
globally competitive in a knowledge based market
economy (Taylor, 2001, p. 4).
Public policy in Canada similar to other western
democracies has been governed by two major paradigms
since the Second World War. Liberalist-Keynesian
economic theory organized federal policy for nearly

622

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

three decades after World War II, followed by neoliberalism which assumed a similar dominance in the 1980s
and 1990s (see Bradford, 2000; Lemon, 1993). The
Great Depression provided the intellectualpolitical
context for the Keynesian breakthrough in the second
half of the 1930s and Keynesian theory proved revolutionary in a number of respects but most obviously it
provided a theoretical critique of economic orthodoxy
of the self correcting market (Bradford, 2000, p. 198).
This was a time of activist government, expansion of
public services and the welfare state and of substantial
constraints on corporate power. Yet, as Bradford describes, the Canadian economy also prospered at this
time and achieved success in four areas: high employment, price stability, economic growth and international
balance. By the 1970s, however, conditions changed in
most western democracies leading to the crisis of the
Keynesian state. The complex restructuring of the nation state as a consequence of the economic eects of
globalization and localization has received much
attention (see Peck, 2001). For example, the internationalization of investment resulted in deindustrialization as
transnational corporations rationalized production
globally (see Bradford, 2000). In Canada, ination more
than tripled in the rst half of the decade primarily due
to the oil price boom, while unemployment doubled in
the second half. Large federal expenditures on tax
incentives and cuts, combined with increased pressure
on automatic stabilizers caused by deteriorating economic conditions, created another problem of persistent
growing annual decits (Bradford, 2000, p. 202). The
capitalist crisis during these decades, with its shrinking
prot rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism (see Martinez and Garcia, 2000). It is
important to note that in such contexts contradictions
do not necessarily arise between the State and the
market and that the State has the option to suppress or
promote the market (Treanor, 2003). When corporations regained their dominance and control of political
parties in the 1970s they chose the later. Both in the
Conservative and Liberal parties, renewed interests
for deregulation, privatization, and an end to government intrusion in the markets led to the re-emergence of
liberalism as the most favoured economic political ideology (Bradford, 2000; Finn, 2001). With rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, neo-liberal principles
of individualism, privatization and decentralization became increasingly evident in public sector planning and
regulation. At the provincial level reforms of Ontarios
CSR appeared to follow in the footsteps of previous
governments in New Zealand, Britain and the United
States, as well as closer to home following Albertas
Klein revolution with changes that involved aggressive
decit and debt reduction, downsizing of the role of
government in economy, and a shift in the way government approached the management of remaining

functions (Taylor, 2001, p. 3). Albertas three year

business plan during the early 1990s embraced, according to an author from the Fraser Institute, a new philosophy of market-driven delivery of services and an
emphasis on the private sector to ensure economic
growth (Taylor, 2001, p. 285). The destruction and
discreditation of Keynesian welfarist and collectivist
institutionssuch as health, education, social welfare,
was fuelled by deeply interventionist agendas around
social issuessuch as crime, immigration, policing, and
workfare reform (see Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 42)
These in turn set the tone for the legitimation of neoliberal reforms.
The globalization of neo-liberal policy solutions to
education problems has similarly gained increasing
dominance in recent years. Critics argue, however, that
such policies in educationincreasingly concerned with
issues of privatization, marketisation, performativity,
and the enterprising individualhave created greater
inequalities and disparities in society (Apple, 2001).
During the mid to later 1990s public education in Ontario underwent much structural change and reform in
this direction with the general approval of the public.
The CSRs broader agenda focused on lowering income
taxes, less government spending, cutting the size of
government and balancing the budget. Reforms in
education were part of the broader agenda for change in
the province.
Despite many criticisms, the success of this ideological discourse, particularly during the past decade has
been hard to combat due to the ideal message that it
conveys to the general public, that is one based on eciency, accountability and equity of resources across
dierent school boards in the province. By tracking
education policies, statements and events, newspaper
articles and other policy reports from 1995 to 2000, this
paper seeks to understand the nature of its success
during the early years of restructuring in three areas of
reform: governance, nance and curriculum. More
importantly, however, the narratives that emerge within
these broader themes focus on the process of rationalization: neoliberal ideologies as applied to education; the
use of rhetoric in discourse; using legislation by stealth
and QUANGOS to undermine an existing structure;
restructuring education to gain money for tax cuts and
debt; and punishing ones enemies i.e. teachers and their
unions, as well as school boards in cities dened as more
progressive. Thus, I argue that part of the success during
this period of restructuring lies in understanding the
techniques and strategies used for implementation. This
is because neoliberalization is a process that is in constant ux and riddled with contradictory rationalizations based on power relations at dierent scales. As
Peck and Tickell (2002) argue, the ideologies of neoliberalism are themselves produced and reproduced
through institutional forms and political action. In order

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

to understand how neoliberal policies were rapidly advanced during the early years of restructuring requires
an exploration of techniques and strategies related to
power relations, hidden agendas (or motivations) and
legitimations. An assessment of these variants contributes to an understanding of the transformative and
adaptive capacity of neoliberalism (see Brenner and
Theodore, 2002).
The paper is structured as follows: After an introduction to the case study, three periods of neoliberalization are presented. First, a period of aggressive
implementation whereby using a variety of techniques
and strategies neoliberal reforms were introduced in
areas of governance, nance and curriculum. Followed
by a period of dissent and chaos to nally a period
of quiet anticipation the neoliberal agenda was slowly
secured in Ontarios landscape. The discursive construction of neoliberal policies during the early years
of education reform will be examined within this context.

2. The neoliberalization of education reform in Ontario

2.1. Introduction to case study
The public education system in Ontario has undergone much structural change in recent years, especially
since 1995 when the Progressive Conservative (PC)
government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, assumed power, elected on a neo-liberal platform called the
Common Sense Revolution (CSR) (see Keil, 2002). As
Gidney notes, CSR was coined as an election strategy to
woo voters disenchanted by rising taxes, spiralling decits and debt, and the intrusion of big government in
their lives (1999, p. 234). The message of the CSR focused on job creation, tax reduction, and cost saving
strategies. Changes in all areas (e.g. education, municipal
administration, hospitals, roads) included claw-backs on
entitlements and the downloading and amalgamation of
services deemed necessary to promote eciency. The
government assured the public that a reduction in
expenditure would not be at the expense of the quality of
public services, including education. In fact, what was
explicitly proposed was that the public would get more
for less-rst, by a reduction in taxes; and second, by
higher quality public services.
Many of the changes that took place in the public
education system between 1995 and 2000 were actually
based on the recommendations of a report entitled For
the Love of Learning prepared by the Royal Commission on Learninga task force formed in 1993 by the
previous leftist, New Democratic Party (NDP) government. The 550-page report made 167 recommendations
on reforming the education system in Ontario (Royal

623

Commission on Learning, 1994). The report recommended new directions in four core areas:
Community alliances: Promote partnerships between
community organizations, businesses, parents and
social agencies.
Early childhood education: Enhance learning and provide a head start for children from three years of age.
If required, to be combined with before and after
school childcare programs.
Teacher professionalization and development: The
establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers as
an independent professional body.
Information technology: Provide schools with technological resources.
From 1995 to 2000 many of the structural changes
that were introduced by the new government were based
on these recommendations. As we will see later on in the
paper, some of these policies were selectively pursued,
while others, such as early childhood education programs, were dropped. I briey trace three major areas of
change during this period: governance, nance and
curriculum. As Gidney (1999) notes these motifs form
the structural basis of Ontarios school system. However, an investigation into these themes also uncovers
the extraordinary spatial variations that can arise within
contextually specic institutional landscapes as neoliberal initiatives are imposed (Brenner and Theodore,
2002, p. 6). These are particularly evident at the local
school level. Basu (2004) explains the unique local
specicities of public schools in Ontario that are not
usually considered during the design and implementation of universalistic neoliberal policies: First, schools
are one of the few publicly funded community resources
present in every neighbourhood across the city and vary
by the socio-demographic composition, history and
culture of the neighbourhood they are located within.
Second, though the primary purpose of these public
institutions is educational, schools can also be thought
to be centres for civic renewal since they provide a
common space for neighbourhood integration. Third,
schools are essentially political in nature and can often
be the battleground for larger social change. Fourth,
schools are intrinsically spatial in nature and the partitioning of space into local school districts has direct
eects on the welfare and status of a neighbourhood.
Witten et al. (2001) similarly argue that schools can
serve as catalysts for community participation, social
cohesion and the vitality of neighbourhoods. The neoliberal doctrine of one size ts all is therefore problematic in the case of school districts due to the spatial
disjunctures that can arise from these local specicities.
Despite these tensions neoliberal ideals were slowly advanced, modied and cemented into the education arena
over the next few years.

624

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

2.2. Gaining a foothold: constructing a neoliberal agenda

2.2.1. Educational governance: the actors
My problem is to see how men govern (themselves
and others) by the production of truth. Foucault
Various state and non-state actors are involved in the
public education system in Ontario both at the provincial and local level (see Fig. 1). At the provincial level,
the Ministry of Education and Training (MET) is formally responsible for developing curriculum guidelines,
certifying teachers, and requiring that school boards

PROVINCIAL
SCALE

REGIONAL/
MUNICIPAL
AGENTS

Boards of
Education
(72)

have policies in specic areas. The driving force and

governmental reason behind the cabinets message
conveyed in the CSR was scal eciency and tax saving
strategies. The governments electoral promise of a 30%
reduction in personal provincial income tax while
simultaneously endeavouring to eliminate an $8 billion
budget decit was the main motivational factor behind
many of the policies designed in subsequent yearsin
other words, policy initiatives were rooted in economic
rationalism (Wilson, 2001). As the following section
reveals, the overall strategy in the area of neoliberal
governance was to slowly increase control at the centre
through the appointment of regulatory bodies while

Cabinet
Common
Sense
Revolution

Ministry
of
Education

Ontario
College of
Teachers

English
Language Public
District School
Boards (31)
English Language
Catholic District
School Boards (29)
French Language
Public District
School Boards (4)
French Language
Catholic District
School Boards (8)

Agencies,
Commissions

Teachers
Unions

Education
Improvement
Commission (EIC)
Education
Quality and
Accountability
Office (EQAO)
Ontario Parent
Council
Languages of
Instruction
Commision of
Ontario
Ministers
Advisory Council
on Special
Education
Provincial
Schools Authority

Ontario
Teachers
Federation
Elementary
Teachers
Federation of
Ontario
Ontario
Secondary
School
Teachers
Federation
Ontario
English
Catholic
Teachers
Association
Association
des
enseignantes
et des
enseignants
francoontariens

LOCAL
AGENTS

NonParents

Private
School
Parents

Public
School
Parents

Community
Organizations,
Businesses

Principals
and VicePrincipals

Teachers
Caretakers/
Support
Staff

Activist Groups:
Parents for Education,
Metro Parents Network
Board Watch

Fig. 1. Actors in Ontarios public education system.

Business
Groups/
Sponsors

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

reducing power at the board and local level. By implementing various legislations and appealing to the emotions, logics and ethics of the electorate, neoliberal
discourse was rationalized at various scales. Some of the
strategies and techniques used in governance were
through the use of quangos, rhetoric and discourse;
fragmenting collective bargaining; and the recruitment
of neoliberal volunteers.
2.2.1.1. Quangos, rhetoric and discourse. One way that
the implementation of policies was attained and legitimized by the ministry was with the appointment of
independent agencies as regulatory bodiessuch as the
Ontario College of Teachers, Education Quality and
Accountability Oce (EQAO), Education Improvement
Commission (EIC) and the Ontario Parent Council. The
function of these agencies also known as Quangos
(Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations)
was to provide advice to the MET and ensure
accountability and eciency in specialized areas. The
agencies appointed by the MET also provided the
opportunity for monitoring, shaping and controlling
institutional behaviour according to neoliberal interests.
For example, in November 1995, the government signalled its intention to ensure that the teaching profession would be made fully accountable to the public it
serves with the establishment of the Ontario College of
Teachers (OCT)a 31 member governing council that
would independently regulate the provinces teaching
profession. The function of the OCT as dened by the
Royal Commission stated
teachers would collectively, through a College of
Teachers, set the standards for entry into teaching,
maintain a register of those licensed to teach in Ontario, and determine the criteria for accrediting (or
recognizing) teacher education programs, whether
that means pre-service preparation or the on-going
professional development of practising teachers.
(p. 17)
Similarly, the function of the EQAO was to monitor and
report to the public on the performance of the education
system (by the use of test results) across the province.
Likewise, the function of the EIC was to oversee the
implementation of education reforms.
Many of the policies implemented during this time
period soon became controversial. However, the presence of centrally controlled advisory-agencies, operating
as neoliberal instruments of control, provided a way of
assuring the public that decisions were fair, just and
non-partisan. Publicly, what appeared to be a non-partisan process may well have been a strategy to deect
some of the heat the ministry had been receiving in
previous months. For example, Gerald Caplan, the cochair of the Royal Commission had publicly attacked

625

the ministry for misinterpreting the Royal Commissions

research (see Wilson, 2001). The centralization of education control (distinct from responsibility) through
these agencies was tied to the altered ideologies and
practices of the neoliberal state (see Witten et al., 2003).
At the Municipal level, School Boards operate
schools according to provincial legislation, provide
educational programs, and hire sta. Run by locally
elected trustees, they represent the interest of all voters
in their ward, regardless of citizenship status. This is
in contrast to federal and provincially elected politicians, who are elected by Canadian citizens only. What
this implies, particularly in large urban areas where
there are many non-Canadian citizens including recent
immigrant and refugee children with special needs
such as English as a Second Language (ESL) and
settlement programs, is that accountability of political
leaders varies depending on the electorate. With the
centralization of resources and power this often leads
to the compromise of some services at the expense of
others.
In 1998, the power of the boards was reduced in a
number of ways. Peck and Tickell (2002, p. 40) have
argued that in the asymmetrical scale politics of neoliberalism, local institutions and actors are increasingly
being given responsibility without power. This was reected in a number of new reforms: First, the number of
boards operating in the province was reduced by amalgamation. Second, trustees were stripped of their control
over levying taxes which was now provincially determined. Third, the annual salary of trustees was capped
at a few thousand dollars another stealth measure to
ensure that the experienced and oppositional trustees
would no longer be in place to oppose the government.
The rationalization of this process began in January
1997, when the Minister of Education announced the
need to reduce administrative costs by reducing the
number of school boards. Though trustees across Ontario receive nominal remuneration, the message conveyed in the following statement implicates trustees as
part of the major nancial problem:
As part of our commitment to move students to
the head of the class, we will refocus our resources
where they belongon the individual student and
teacher in the classroom. . . To do this, we will
streamline administration by cutting the number
of school boards by half, and eliminating politicians
by cutting the number of trustees by two-thirds.
(MET, January 1997)
Thus by 1998, as a cost-cutting strategy made on the
recommendations of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, 129 major school boards in Ontario
were reduced to 72 district boardsclassied under
English and French Public and Separate School Boards.

626

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

The number of trustees was similarly cut from almost

1900 to approximately 700. 1 By 1998, the six cities and
boroughs that made up the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto were amalgamated into a single city of
Toronto. The six boards of education were similarly
merged into the new Toronto District School Board
(TDSB) as part of a fundamental realignment of taxation and spending between the province of Ontario and
its municipal governments (Basu, 2002). Currently the
largest board in Canada and among the 10 largest in
North America, it has a full-time student enrolment of
over 300,000 (19981999 TDSB School Brochure).
2.2.1.2. Fragmenting collective bargaining. By 1998, the
power of principals and vice-principals was considerably
reduced: First, as a measure of cost cutting, schools with
fewer than 350 students were required to share a principal or double up. Second, after a province wide strike
in October 1997, principals and vice-principals were
removed from teachers unions. Following the logic of
the market big business has encouraged government and
the public to see big unions as foot-dragging impediments to economic restructuring and prosperity (see
Barlow and Robertson, 1994).
The relations between teachers and the province had
become increasingly strained with the implementation of
new rules and regulations but did not go uncontested
despite the removal of principals and vice principals from
unions. A province wide strike in October 1997 over Bill
160 (dealing with class size, preparation time and curricula) was determined unlawful. It was deemed the
largest such strike in Canadian educational history
with 126,000 teachers walking the picket line and 2.1
million students out of their classroom (Wilson, 2001).
The power of teachers was changed considerably
through legislation and discourse. As a result of the
protest an evaluation of Bill 100 (dealing with collective
bargaining rights) was considered to strip teachers unions of the right to strike. Second, student instructional
time was increased by decreasing teacher preparation
time and professional advancement (PA) days. Third,
after-school curricular activitiesactivities that were
traditionally provided on a volunteer basiswere to be
mandated. Fourth, teachers were to be tested every ve
years for re-certication purposes. These measures, the
ministry argued, were not only cost-saving strategies but
would also result in more time spent within the classroom. In August 1996, the government had released
two reports to the public indicating why education costs

1
The Ministry of Education argued that other provinces in Canada
were following such restructuring measures by reducing the number of
boards (British Columbiareduced from 75 to 57; Alberta 181 to 57;
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick18 school
boards eliminated altogether (MET, Background Report, 1997).

were higher in Ontario. Along with trustees, teachers

were now portrayed as being part of the nancial problem and the reason behind high property taxes.
Teacher salaries had driven up education costs disproportionately to other provinces since 1984 and
as a result 100 Ontario school boards had raised
property taxes. (MET, August 1996)
Using this rationalization, the province rhetorically argued that it was necessary to examine outdated school
board/teacher bargaining rules by conducting a review
of Bill 100. The timing of this proposition was important. Due to the expiry of the Social Contract 2 set by
the previous government, collective bargaining negotiations related to the salaries of teachers were anticipated. By November 1996, Bill 100 was invalidated and
the collective bargaining process for teachers was
incorporated into the Labour Relations Act. Strategies
now included using rhetoric on the plight of children
where the Ministry now argued
Bill 100 is outdated, inadequate and worst of all,
does nothing to clarify who is ultimately responsible and accountable for educating our children.
And it is the children who suer as a result.
(Emphasis added to illustrate the use of rhetoric.)
Other rationalizations included
Over the past 20 years, strikes have resulted in
more than 17 million student days lost. That is a
disgrace and should not be tolerated. (emphasis
added) (MET, November 1996)
Validity is established by mode of communication
in this case by an attempt to shift the blame to labour
unrest and striking teachers. The neoliberal ideals were
slowly advanced and cemented by appealing to the
logics (nancial savings, eciency within the classroom), ethics (waste of time due to strikes), and emotion
(state of children) of the public.
2.2.1.3. Recruiting neoliberal volunteers. At the local
level there are many actor agents outside the state system. In Ontario, school councils became mandatory in
1998. These local volunteer bodies also faced increased
responsibilities and less power in the form of community responsibilisation (see Witten et al., 2003). Their
role dened by the Royal Commission on Learning was
to provide advice to principals and school boards on
2
Negotiated in 1993, the social contract froze salary increases and
pay increases based on teaching experience for three years (News
Release, August 1996).

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

various local issues such as school budgets, curriculum

and program priorities, school code behaviour, community use of school facilities and the selection of
principals. Elected at the neighbourhood level, council
members are local volunteers representing the welfare of
their immediate school. According to market logics such
voluntary, self interested groups are primarily driven by
the interests of their local children and the activities of
the council are geared towards improving the conditions
and facilities of the neighbourhood school. However,
paradoxically, though school councils appear to function as state volunteers providing the services of a
shrinking welfare state (see Deem et al., 1995), networks
between public schools have also resulted in advocacy
groups that are more widespread in nature. In contrary
to neoliberal ideologies that foster competition and
individual self interest, local neighbourhood schools
have also expanded into networks and alliances whose
concerns extend beyond the particular local interests.
Some examples of informal political groups that began
to take an active role and challenge policies include
Parents for Education (P4E); Metro Parents Network;
and Board Watch among many others. Finally, other
stakeholders in the education system include caregivers
with children (i.e. parents, grandparents) in the private
education system, businesses and other community
groups.
2.2.2. Finance: centralization of control and equitable
funding
In the hollowing out of the post-welfare state,
schooling remains compulsory and the state still owns
and funds the majority of schools (Witten et al., 2003).
Funding however, is guided by the models of the Neoliberal State with their concerns for scal eciency,
accountability and choice. In October 1995, soon after
the elections, the government announced a reduction
target of $79.8 million to the education system. A government press release in December 1995 stated that
Ontario spent approximately $600 more per student
than the average of all the other provinces, for a total of
$1.3 billion more. The goal of the ministry was to bring
the costs down to an average rather than maintain its
position as the highest spender in public education.
What was implied once again was that the education
system was riddled with bureaucratic ineciencies and
was squandering taxpayers money. Schools could
achieve better scal eciency, it was argued, if they were
to be placed in a competitive market and managed like
businesses (see Barlow and Robertson, 1994). Among the
immediate cuts announced in the budget was a reduction
in the transfer payment to school boards ($32 million);
cancellation of early childhood education pilot projects
and reduction in administrative services. By December
1995, announcements were even made on cuts that would
make Junior Kindergarten optional for boards and that

627

would no longer qualify adult students for full-time

status funding. The importance of early childhood education, as recommended by the Royal Commission, did
not appear to be cost eective. By March 1996, the
introduction of The Education Amendment Act 3 allowed
these cuts to be legislated. During this process of
aggressive restraints the electorate was reassured that
though cuts were necessary, essential areas would be
safeguarded, i.e. classroom funding would be protected
and local taxes would not increase. The ideological
stance associated with social justice, equity, progress and
citizenship rights in Ontarios public education system
(such as expanding into programs related to early
childhood education and adult education) were touted as
costly to maintain and the focus instead, slowly changed
to one of protecting self interest and increasing choice
(classroom funding and saving taxes).
One of the most radical changes, typical of neo-liberal practices, was the centralization of nancial control.
Since the creation of Ontarios school system in the
1840s, local autonomy rested on the ability of school
boards to raise their own revenues (Gidney, 1999).
School boards till the early nineties relied on a combination of local property taxes (residential, industrial and
commercial) and grants from the provincial government
to manage their schools. 4 By 1998 however, the provincial government assumed the power to set the amount to
be raised by school boards from local property taxes. In
order to ensure equitable funding in schools across the
province, the responsibility of nancing local schools
was to be centralized and transferred from the municipal
board to the provincial level. School board expenditures
were to be identied and categorized according todirect classroom expenditures, operational support and
administrative support. 5 The board expenditure on the

Amendments to The Education Act included making the delivery

of junior kindergarten optional; directing adult students to continuing
education courses; promoting equitable impacts throughout the system
by enabling negative grant boards to contribute their share of savings;
require that school boards report annually on co-operative initiatives
(MET, March 1996).
4
Provincial grants can be classied under foundation grant,
categorical grant and equalization adjustment. The foundation
grant provides a basic amount per pupil; categorical grant provides
funding for special costs and needs; while the equalization adjustment
amount is provided to compensate poorer areas.
5
Classroom funding dened as spending onclassroom teachers;
supply teachers; teacher assistants; textbooks and classroom supplies;
computers; library and guidance services; professional and paraprofessional services; funding for sta development (65% of all spending
to be directed to direct classroom spending).
Non-classroom funding dened as all other funding-trustees;
school board administration; debt charges; directors of education and
supervisory ocers; teacher preparation time; department heads;
transportation; teacher consultants; school operations; continuing
education; principals and vice-principals; school secretaries (Ministry
of Education and Training Background Report, March 1998).

628

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

last two categories were to be limited to less than 40% of

total budgets in order to promote equitable amount of
direct classroom expenditure per pupil (Ontario School
Board Reduction Task Force, Final Report, 1996). This
was argued to be a more fair way of allocating variations that existed across boards due to dierential
property valuesthe disproportionate distribution of
education funds leaning towards more heavily populated urban areas with signicant industrial bases (Wilson, 2001). However, instead of raising the standard,
recommendations were based on bringing down expenditures to an average level 6 or equalizing down to the
lowest common denominator. A press release in March
1997, announced the support of the Fewer School Boards
Act by the Ontario Parent Council.
Parallel to this, in September 1996, the need for a new
funding model was announced. The minister stressed
that a new funding model would promote fairness and
equity across the education system in Ontario:
Parents can be sure that, no matter where they live
in Ontario, their kids will have the same opportunity to excel. There is no such thing as a second-class
student in Ontario. The new model will recognize
that dierent communities face dierent challenges
to providing high quality education. (emphasis
added)
while at the same time be scally responsible:
With the new, streamlined model it will be easier
to see where the money is going, to understand
why it is going there, and to compare how well taxpayers dollars are being managed. (MET, September 1996)
Through the use of rhetorical arguments appeals to
the logic, emotion and ethics were once again used in
public communication to promote and legitimize neoliberal discourse. Part of the technique was to allow
some leniency in order to rationalize decisions further.
Thus, though the core message was to build a policy of
scal restraint, the Ministry acknowledged the need for
capital investment due to rising enrolments. Soon after,
however, a report released in January 1997 entitled
Analysis of Capital Funding for School Facilities stated
that a new funding model was necessary in order to
identify new strategies to utilize schools more eectively
thereby reducing the need for new pupil spaces. The
rationalization proposed was that school space was not

6
Mackenzie (1998) argues that these spending levels were brought
down to a median level (where Boards across Ontario were ranked
according to spending) rather than an average level.

being used eectively. This verdict set the stage for the
implementation of Bill 160 which proposed the widespread closure of schools across the province. The
implication of this will be discussed later on.
2.2.3. Curriculum: regulating knowledge and classroom
space
Spaces of learning are politicized and the neoliberalization of the classroom was promoted in dierent ways.
The rationalization of restructuring was legitimized by a
perceived need to remain globally competitive in a
knowledge based economy while at the same time
maintain scal eciency and accountability. In order to
remain competitive in a global market the education
system would need to increase educational standards
and improve outcomes. The techniques and strategies
included an audit culture framed in terms of quality,
accountability and empowerment that would assure that
these goals were indeed maintained (see Shore and
Wright, 1999). In the message of the CSR this was
attained by conveying to voters the necessity to increase
accountability and regulation within the classroom.
Classroom funding was to be protected and enhanced by
redirecting money saved in administrative costs. This
was accomplished in various ways: First, in November
1995, announcements were made to reduce the secondary system from ve years to four years by the year
2001. This, it was argued would amount to savings for
taxpayers of $350 million annually (MET, November
1995). Second, in order to enhance optimal learning
conditions, classroom sizes were to be maintained at a
reasonable leveldened as 25 students in elementary
classrooms and 22 students in high school classrooms.
Another example of increased regulation within the
classroom came about with the introduction of standardized report cards and standardized testing across
the province. In 1998, the Ontario Provincial Government, through the Education Quality and Accountability Oce (EQAO), introduced mandatory standardized
testing for grades three and six in Public Elementary
Schools as the beginning of a process of public
accountability and excellence in education for Ontario
students and taxpayers (MET, November 1995). Proponents for this method of evaluation (this included the
Ontario Parent Council once again) argued that such
procedures were valuable to teachers, schools and the
community at large since they would inform teaching
and learning. With the release of test results to the
media, this technique of power allowed individual
schools to police themselves within the public realm. In
Foucaultian terms this disciplinary mechanism marked
a new form of coercive neo-liberal governmentality
(Shore and Wright, 1999).
In order to facilitate the process of standardized
testingbased on the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commissions (EIC) report entitled

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

The Road Ahead (1997)the Ministry argued that it was

also necessary for teachers to spend more time in the
classroom. This argument was further fuelled by the rst
set of test results released in October 1997, which indicated a need for improvement to meet the standards set
in Ontario. By 1998, province-wide standards for the
amount of time teachers were to spend in the classroom
were set. By rationalizing the need for measuring and
tracking teacher performance, hours in the classroom,
standardized curriculum, student testing and classroom
sizes the process of neoliberalizing the classroom assured
the public that institutional eectiveness would be
maintained.
2.3. Period of dissent: contesting the rationalization of
school closuresBill 160
So far the slow and steady construction and consolidation of neoliberal policies and principles into the
education system in Ontario was largely accepted and
remained unchallenged (up to this point) by the majority
of the population due to two reasons: First, they were
persuaded by the rationales oered by the newly elected
government, and second, because policy change by
stealth approach was used to legitimize practices. The
core elements of this style are that changes to policy are
made without a genuine process of public consultation
or debate and are done through technical measures announced in budgets (Prince, 1999, p. 158). The main
goals of a stealth approach are eliminating government
decits and reducing national debt. Changes are usually
expressed in arcane and technical language involving
amendments to obscure legislation or regulations
(Prince, 1999) and with considerable speed (Murphy and
Kearns, 1994).
The rst two years of aggressive changes (19951997)
though largely uncontested soon began to falter. As
mentioned earlier by September 1997, the stage was set
for the introduction of one of the most radical bills in
the history of education in OntarioThe Education
Quality Improvement Act (Bill 160). The Bill was proposed as the next logical step to The Fewer School
Boards Act (Bill 104) discussed above. The goal of the
new bill (nearly 300 pages in length) was to continue
with the ideology of the CSR to ensure the highest
quality of education in the most cost eective manner.
Changes and amendments to the Education Act were
made in several major areas: governance, nance, labour
relations and matters related to instruction in Ontarios
schools (Bill 160 Compendium, September 1997). The
changes, many of them discussed in the previous section,
were to be set by regulation, not requiring approval by
the legislature. According to Gidney (1999) this strategy
of stealth allowed sections in Bill 160 (such as the
complexity of the funding formula) to escape public
scrutiny.

629

The release and formalization of the various policies

in Bill 160 soon led to a state of disarray and chaos
across the province (see Gidney, 1999). The consequences of the impact were at rst contested by those
aected directlymainly teachers, school trustees and
parent activists involved with education reform. Largescale teacher protests over Bill 160 were widely publicized in the media. As mentioned earlier, this strike was
the largest in Canadian educational history and did have
an impact. In October 1997, the Minister of Education,
John Snobelen (infamously known for his comment on
creating a crisis in education in 1995) was transferred
to the Ministry of Natural Resources. However, in
October 1997, after a two-week long period, the teachers strike was declared illegal. The conicts between
the province and teachers unions were widely publicized by both sides to gain public support. For example, the Ministry ordered Boards to repay families up to
$40/day for payments in childcare incurred due to the
strike.
Soon after in March 1998, the release of the Studentfocused funding model was announced. As part of Bill
160, it was geared towards the allocation of one basic
universal per pupil Foundation Grant. This amount
$3367 for each elementary student and $3953 for each
secondary studentwas to be allocated for students
living anywhere in Ontario. This at rst seemed to be a
fair approach. The Minister pledged
By allocating funds specically to classroom and
non-classroom areas, we will ensure that students
and teachers in the classroom are clear priorities. . .
We will not fund waste; we are investing in our children and in quality. (MET, March 1998) (emphasis
added)
In addition to the Foundation Grant (which includes
10 separate grants) there were nine Special Purpose
grants and a Pupil Accommodation Grant. Special Purpose Grants included funds towards Early Learning,
Special Education, Language, Geography, Transportation, Adult and Continuing Education, School Board
Administration and Governance and Learning Opportunities.
However, the issue of school closures was a consequence of the Pupil Accommodation Grant. This included costs of operating, maintaining and constructing
school buildings. According to this component of the
model, boards qualied for funding of new pupil places
when they demonstrate that they had used all their
existing school buildings eectively and could not
accommodate increased enrolment without additional
space (MET, 1998). The Boards across the province
were given six months (by September 1998) to develop a
policy on accommodating students eectively. If

630

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

Boards failed to comply with these regulations and were

to incur nancial diculties or run at a decit, the
province would assume control over nancial decisions.
In addition to this, trustees would be held accountable
by the law if they failed to comply with the ministers
regulations. 7 The funding formula was to be implementedregardless of opposition.
So far, parties directly aected contested the implications from Bill 160. In July 1998, two groups (Ontario
English Catholic Teachers Association and the Ontario
Public School Boards Association) challenged 14 aspects of the 396 sections of Bill 160. By September 1998,
7400 teachers across the Greater Toronto Area were on
strike (Toronto Star, September 1998) once again.
Soon however, the announcement of the Pupil
Accommodation grant was followed by the threat of
potential school closures across the province. The
political denitions regarding what constituted educational space and what spaces were frill areas (often
music rooms, child care spaces) link back to the logics of
neoliberal ideologies as to the core areas for education.
According to reports released by the Toronto District
School Board, the provincial funding formula translated
into an excess capacity of 11 million square feet. This
gure was calculated by multiplying the total number of
students by 100 square feet per elementary student and
130 square feet per high school student. The Board then
argued that the only way it could eliminate 8 million
square feet was by closing 138 schools. The media
widely publicized the loss of other school based programs such as the state of childcare within schools, ESL
programs, Adult Education and other community based
programs. 8 When the Toronto City Council was pressured to provide some answers, it responded by arguing
that in order to cover the costs of keeping all of the citys
138 threatened schools open, local property taxes would
need to be increased (Toronto Star, November 1998).
The message soon became clear. A large number of
school closures, it was argued, were necessary in order to
adhere to policies. The strategy that the school board
planners used in 1998 can be considered as both a
technical and political response (see Flyvbjerg, 1998).
On the technical side, they were able to respond by
implementing the provincial policy to its fullest extent
thus exposing the inadequacies of the funding formula.
The issue of school closures soon generated a large scale
urban social movement in Torontowhereby many
residents were outraged at the prospect of losing so
many publicly funded schools and collectively organized
7

In March 2000, The Greater Essex County Board passed a motion

that indicated the majority of trustees were prepared to approve a
decit budget, contrary to the Education Act (News Release, March
2000).
8
A news release stated that 71 day cares would close and would
aect 3500 children (Toronto Star, October 1998).

protests and rallies across the city (see Basu, 2004).

Participants in these protests included teachers, students, parents and politicians. For example, protests
such as the Green Ribbon Campaign were organized
by the Parents for Education activist group across the
city. Protests took place in front of the neighbourhood
schools and were not restricted to demonstrations in
front of school boards or the ministry headquarters. The
widespread visibility of dissent led to the message being
heard across various communities. Phipps (2000) similarly notes the successful movements against school
closures in Essex County, Ontario based on the communitys knowledge of neighbourhood rules and resources.
The threat of school closures evokes a passionate
response in communities (see Witten et al., 2003; Bondi,
1987). When institutional restructuring unfolds at the
local level negotiations begin to take place (see Brenner
and Theodore, 2002). What is conveyed in the following
statements are the sentiments attached to neighbourhood schools when faced with closure.
For example, Gidney notes (1999, p. 274)
When both rural and urban boards began to release lists of specic schools to be axedschools
which children actually attended and which were
rooted in real communitiesprotests mounted in
villages, towns and cities alike.
Newspaper articles at this time period report
What has become clear is that Toronto is tied to
its neighbourhood schools in a big way. (Toronto
Sun, December 1998)
Theyre not just schools, theyre meeting places.
Theyre the heart and souls of our communities. . ..
Our nal position is that no school, under this
funding formula, should close. (Toronto Star,
November 1998)
By November 1998, the power of some neighbourhood-based collective action on the planning decision
translated into the re-negotiation of the funding formula. A newspaper report alludes to this strategy:
Objectively, there may indeed have been enough
money for Toronto under the provincial funding
formula to keep all or most of the 138 school open,
provided that the school board was willing to make
cuts elsewhere, which it wasnt. (Toronto Star,
November 1998)
Though trustees, it seemed, had lost their power to
levy taxes and most of their salaries, they still held the
responsibility of accountability to their constituents and

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

were able to take advantage of this position. The politicizing of planning by the announcement of mass closures of schools had managed to spark considerable
dissent across the city. The Premier immediately announced a package of initiatives designed to make the
provinces education funding formula more exible
(MET, November 1998) and announced the injection of
more than $200 million into the funding formula (Toronto Star, November 1998). To assist the board in
nding savings the government announced four initiatives, mainly:
To maintain the current levels of funding for a one
year period to assist school boards that were phasing-in reductions.
To provide additional exibility in the form of a 20%
operating fund top-up (schools operating at an 80%
enrolment level would be funded at a full level).
To adjust the formula to reect the unique design features of many schools (larger hallways).
To provide the assistance of an expert management
company to analyze boards budgets and operations
and provide recommendations (MET, November
1998).
In this case during open confrontation rationality yields
to power (Flyvbjerg, 1998)whereby the cabinet changed its funding formula due to resulting public reaction.
What is interesting to note in relation to power
dynamics is that neighbourhood residents (constituents)
operating from an informal semi-institutionalized position had greater authority than agents operating within
the formal structurei.e. teachers, trustees. Centralized
government felt compelled to show some sort of exibility in the design of the policy when compromising
with the realities on the ground. Following this event
the interim strategy, inuenced by this initial collective
action for the 481 public elementary schools in Toronto,
was a long range planning exercise, divided into three
phases that envisaged the proposed closure of 30 schools
over three years (1999, 2000, 2001). The change from a
formula that necessitated the closure of 138 schools (at
once) to 30 schools (over a period of three years) is an
exemplary case of the malleability of neoliberalism to
maintain its legitimacy (see Student-Focused Funding
Model, 1997; Pupil Accommodation Review, 1999;
School ClosuresSeptember 2001, 2000). The one-timeonly mitigation fund illustrates how antagonistic confrontation is avoided and how stable power relations are
promoted by power.
2.4. Period of quiet anticipation
Before concluding, the events that followed (till the
end of 2000) are briey summarized. After the widespread dissent of Bill 160 what followed was a relatively

631

quiet year in preparation for the forthcoming provincial

elections that was to take place in June 1999. The message in the election campaign was the same as before: to
improve the quality of education; to improve funding in
the classroom; and to improve accountability to students, parents and taxpayers. In the 1999 provincial
elections, the Provincial Conservative Government was
re-elected to power. The Minister of Education, David
Johnson, however, was defeated at the polls. Janet
Ecker, previously the Minister of Social and Community
Services, was brought in as the new Minister of Education. By March 2000, as a form of protest against new
regulations related to instructional time, teachers from
Janet Eckers ridingThe Durham Board of Educationwithdrew after-school extra-curricular activities.
Due to the withdrawal of these volunteer services, the
Minister announced the need for new legislationThe
Education Accountability Act, 2000 (Bill 74). 9 Activities
outside the classroom (that were traditionally provided
on a volunteer basis) were now to be classied as coinstructional (not extra) and to be reported to the
Ministry by the boards. Parallel to the implementation
of Bill 74, the focus for the rest of 2000 was mainly on
issues related to regulating safety, discipline, code of
conduct and student behaviour, such as the passing of
The Safe Schools Act and partnership with police. Issues
popular with voters and the theme of the CSR were
reinforced to promote, build and legalize ideals of safety
and security in Ontarios schools.

3. Conclusion
In this paper, the rationalization of neoliberal discourse during a period of structural readjustment in
Ontarios education system was examined. From a
period of aggressive construction and consolidation of
market based principles; followed by a period of dissent
and chaos; and to a period of quiet anticipation before
the electionsthe neoliberal agenda of the CSR used a
variety of techniques and strategies to gain a foothold
and entrench itself more rmly in the education system.
Policies driving the agenda of education reform illustrate many features of neoliberal discourse such as
increasing concerns with issues of privatization, marketisation and performativity in the school system (see
Apple, 2001). The rationalization of restructuring was
legitimized by rst establishing an immediate need for
schools to raise their standards and adjust their curriculum in order to remain competitive in a global economy. However, as the underlying motivation of the
9
Instructional time was to continue to be regulated at 4 h and 20
min for elementary students and 4 h and 10 min (equivalent of 6.67
credits/yr) for secondary students each day.

632

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

CSR was decit elimination and tax reduction, the discourse of scal eciency and accountability were entrenched in all areas of reform. Changes included
funding cutbacks, centralization of nancial control,
amalgamation of school boards, closure of schools,
standardized testing, teacher-testing, limiting the power
of teachers unions, mandatory school councils and
preparing students to meet the demands of the market.
In this paper I have argued that part of the success of
this ideological discourse was largely due to the strategies and tactics used by the CSR to promote policies that
appeared legitimate and eective in improving the education system.
Three types of techniques were used to aggressively
implement neoliberal policies in education during the
early years of the CSR. First, through the appointment
of various Quangossuch as the Education Improvement Commission (EIC), Education Quality and
Accountability Oce (EQAO), Ontario Parent Councilwhere objective advice was in reality geared towards legitimizing neoliberal economic rationalism.
Such systems operate under an audit culture of governance that allows the system to be placed under
surveillance and control through the monitoring,
standardizing and accounting of performance in various sectors (see Foucault, 1991; Shore and Wright,
1999). What were proposed as being arm-length agencies were not separate institutions in reality but techniques of power used to create knowledge (see Flyvbjerg,
1998).
Another political technique leading up to the rapid
and harried legislation of neoliberal agendas was
implementing policies through a stealth approach. As
discussed earlier this process is characterized by hidden
and closed process of budgeting, minimum public consultation, and where arcane and technical language is
used to rationalize predetermined decisions (Prince,
1999). This was particularly evident in the implementation of Bill 160a 300 page document, lled with
technical ambiguities and amendments in areas of nance, governance, labour relations and curriculum.
Other bills implemented this way included Bill 100
(reducing the bargaining power of teacher unions); Bill
104 (reducing the number of boards, centralizing
nancial control, and reducing the power of local
trustees); Bill 74 (reducing the power of teachers and
imposing extra curriculum activities). Overall, the reform by stealth process was driven by economic and
ideological imperatives beyond education policy; introduced with considerable haste; and instituted without
(or with minimum) public consultation (see Murphy and
Kearns, 1994).
Finally, numerous examples cited in the paper illustrate that in order to legitimize neoliberal truths governments use rhetoric, as an art of persuasion to appeal
to the logics, emotion and ethics of the public. Flyvbjerg

(1998) argues that communication is established via the

mode of communication that is eloquence, hidden control, rationalization, charisma and by using dependency
relations. As shown in the examples of this paper, politicians used persuasion techniques (both oral and
written techniques) that created doubt and allowed the
public to lose condence in the system. Rhetorical language such as putting children rst, local school
boards are inecient and inept, unions are a problem,
teachers do not spend enough time in the classroom,
and funding should be shifted back within the classroom freely owed from speeches and media releases.
Such rationalization techniques not only further promote, strengthen and consolidate the foundation of
neoliberal principles but also work towards appealing to
the general approval of the public.
However, neoliberalization is a process that is in
constant ux and riddled with contradictory rationalizations based on power relations at dierent scales and
dierent time periods. The ideologies of neoliberalism
produced by the CSR did not go uncontested especially
during the early years. The period of aggressive implementation was challenged by various actors especially
when the implications were felt at the local level. Thus
for example, when the issue of school closures was
brought forward, the local boards retaliated by implementing the formula to its fullest extent. This resulted in
large scale school closures and consequently led to grassroot protests across the city. The scalar dynamics implied
that there was a spatial disjuncture in the rationalization
of neoliberal policies. What appeared to work at one
level (macro-provincial level) disintegrated at another
(micro-neighbourhood level). As argued earlier on in the
paper, universal policies are problematic when the
specicities of local contexts are taken into account.
Local residents do not usually organize in response to
macro-societal changes and general conicts, but typically around specic issues perceived as critical at the
local level (see Cox and Mair, 1988; Davis, 1991; Hasson
and Ley, 1994). What this implies, then, is that
some localities are better able to organize and protect
themselves against impending cutbacks (active neighbourhoods) compared to others (more dormant neighbourhoods) (see Basu, 2002). This leads to further
inequalities in the provision of public services including
education particularly impacting dierent marginal
groups. I have written about the implications of these
local dynamics elsewhere (see Basu, 2002, 2004). As
noted, neoliberal policies were more responsive to
informal action (from ratepayers, neighbourhood
groups, school councils) than formal collective action
(such as teachers unions, caretakers unions). In order to
maintain legitimacy and support of the wider electorate,
policies were rapidly (though only temporarily) transformed. This period of retreat or roll back was followed
by a phase of slow, non-confrontational, voter friendly

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

policy building. Hence, in order to remain successful and

legitimate, neoliberal discourse is malleable and adjusts
according to power dynamics which dier by the context,
history and spatial dynamics of a place.
Thus by and large, though structural changes did not
go uncontested they were positively accepted by the
majority of the voters during the early years of the CSR.
With very clever and timely strategies the province was
rapidly able to restore its previous imageas a champion of the neo-liberal agenda.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professors John Miron, Larry
Bourne and Kim England for their advice during the
research phase of this project. Special thanks to Editor
Jenny Robinson and three anonymous reviewers for
their invaluable feedback and critical comments.
References
Apple, M.W., 2001. Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in
education. Comparative Education 37 (4), 409423.
Barlow, M., Robertson, H.J., 1994. Class Warfare: The Assault on
Canadas Schools. Key Porter Books Ltd., Toronto.
Basu, R., 2002. Active and Dormant spaces: a geographical response
to school based care. Journal for Planning Education and Research
21 (3), 274284.
Basu, R., 2004. A Flyvbjergian perspective on public elementary
school closures in Toronto: a question of rationality or power?
Environment and Planning: C, Government and Policy, forthcoming.
Bondi, L., 1987. School closures and local politics: the negotiation of
primary school rationalization in Manchester. Political Geography
Quarterly 6 (3), 203224.
Bradford, N., 2000. Governing the Canadian Economy: Ideas and
Politics. In: Whittington, M., Williams, G. (Eds.), Canadian
Politics in the 21st Century, fth ed. Nelson, Scarborough,
pp. 193215.
Brenner, N., Theodore, N., 2002. Cities and the Geographies of
Actually existing Neoliberalism. In: Theodore, N., Brenner, N.
(Eds.), Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North
America and Western Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.
Cox, K.R., Mair, A., 1988. Locality and community in the politics of
local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 782, 307325.
Davis, J.E., 1991. Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban
Neighbourhood. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Deem, R., Brehony, K., Heath, S., 1995. School Governors: Citizens
or State Volunteers? In: Active Citizenship and the Governing of
Schools. Open University Press, Buckingham, PA, pp. 156170
(Chapter 8).
Finn, E., 2001. Were ghting a powerful ideology: the rst step in
opposing neoliberalism is to understand it. Available from <http://
www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/articles/article300.html>.
Flyvbjerg, B., 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice
(translated by Steven Sampson) University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C.,
Miller, P. (Eds.), The Foucalt Eect: Studies in Governmentality.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Chapter 4).

633

Gidney, R.D., 1999. From Hope to Harris: the Reshaping of Ontarios

Schools. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Hasson, S., Ley, D., 1994. Neighbourhood Organization and the
Welfare State. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Keil, R., 2002. Common-Sense Neoliberalism: Progressive Conservative Urbanism in Toronto, Canada. In: Brenner, N., Theodore, N.
(Eds.), Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North
America and Western Europe. Blackwell, Oxford (Chapter 10).
Lemon, J.T., 1993. Social planning and the welfare state. In: Bourne,
L.S., Ley, D.F. (Eds.), The Changing Social Geography of
Canadian Cities. McGill-Queens University Press (Chapter 14).
Mackenzie, H., 1998. Behind the illusion of stable public spending
shrinking public services in Ontario. Ontario Alternative Budget
Working Group Technical Paper #4, June 1998. Available: http://
www.ofto.on.ca/ftp/tp4.pdf.
Martinez, E., Garcia, A., 2000. What is Neo-Liberalism? A brief
denition. Available from <http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/neoliberalDened.html>.
Murphy, L., Kearns, R.A., 1994. Housing New Zealand Ltd:
privatisation by stealth. Environment and Planning A 26, 623637.
Peck, J., 2001. Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes.
Progress in Human Geography 25 (3), 445455.
Peck, J., Tickell, A., 2002. Neoliberalizing Space. In: Brenner, N.,
Theodore, N. (Eds.), Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.
Phipps, A.G., 2000. A structurationist interpretation of community
activism during school closures. Environment and Planning: A 32,
18071823.
Prince, M.J., 1999. From Health and Welfare to Stealth and Farewell:
Federal Social Policy, 19802000. In: Leslie, A.P. (Ed.), How
Ottawa Spends 19992000: Shape Shifting: Canadian Governance
Toward the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, pp.
151196.
Scruton, R., 1996. Legitimation. In: A Dictionary of Political Thought.
MacMillan, London.
Shore, C., Wright, S., 1999. Audit culture and anthropology: neoliberalism in British higher education. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 5 (4), 557575.
Taylor, A., 2001. The Politics of Education Reform in Alberta.
University of Toronto Press Incorporated, Toronto, Bualo,
London.
Treanor, P., 2003. Neoliberalism. Available from <http://web.inter.nl.
net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html>.
Wilson, R., 2001. Sho me the money! The common sense revolution
in Ontario (Canada). Crisis, confrontation and chaos in the
education sector. A policy history: 19952000. Available from
<http://sites.netscape.net/wilsonrogert>, June 12th, 2001.
Witten, K., Kearns, R., Lewis, N., Coster, H., 2003. Educational
restructuring from a community viewpoint: a case study of school
closure from Invercagill, New Zealand. Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy 21, 203223.
Witten, K., McCreanor, T., Kearns, R., Ramasubramanian, L., 2001.
The impacts of a school closure on neighbourhood social cohesion:
narratives from Invercargill, New Zealand. Health and Place 7,
307317.

Ministry of Education and Training (MET), Ontario

All news releases, reports and statements between January 1995 and
December 2000 (72 months). Available from <http://www.edu.
gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/nr.html>.
Ontario School Board Reduction Task ForceSweeneys Commission, 1996.
Royal Commission on Learning, 1994. For the Love of Learning.
Parents for Education, 19981999. Tracking Report.
Metro Parents Network Tracking Report, 19981999.

634

R. Basu / Geoforum 35 (2004) 621634

Toronto District School Board Reports

19981999 TDSB School Brochure.
School Closures: a Response to the Provincial Governments StudentFocused Funding Model, 1997.
Student-Focused Funding Model, March 1998.
Pupil Accommodation Review: 2000 and Beyond 1999. Phase I.
School ClosuresSeptember 2001, 2000. Phase II.

Newspaper articles
Toronto Star, September 9, 1998. More Schools in the GTA shut
doors.

Toronto Star, October 30, 1998. Money at root of ght; Schools on the
road to closing; A tale of two schools; Plans put daycare at risk;
High risk kids will suer.
Toronto Star, November 4, 1998. City Cash could save schools,
Jakobek says.
Toronto Star, November 7, 1998. Tories blink on schools: hundreds
of schools win reprieve as Premier restores $200 million.
Toronto Star (November 4, 1998) 600 turn out to ght school closing.
Toronto Star (November 7, 1998) Ian Urquharts Editorial Premier
coughs up cash but school battle still rages.
Toronto Sun (December 9, 1998) City cant dodge school space bullet
Torontos budget problems have only just begunand were
talking millions and millions of dollars.