Let me begin by unequivocally restating labour's absolute support for our public education system. Although many people don't know it, historically the trade union movement was at the forefront of the struggle to create the public education system. When you think about it, it only makes sense. There were always schools available for the wealthy - but without public schools, the sons and daughters of working people were destined for a life of hard labour and illiteracy.

Much of the progress working people in Canada have made can be attributed to the great equalizing effect of public education with its principles of equal access, equal opportunity and equal educational resources.

That is readily apparent here in Edmonton, where the public school system predates even the founding of the Province itself.

Given the labour movement's stake in public education, it is easily understandable why any changes that could alter the shape of public education cause real concern. And, certain aspects of business partnerships clearly fall into this category.

One of the immediate problems in presenting a labour perspective on business partnerships in the schools is the extremely varied kinds of activities that fall under the term. There are work experience programs - which labour actively supports within specific guide-lines - at one end of the spectrum. At the other end, there are visible commercial intrusions into our schools - something which labour cannot support.

In an attempt to clarify labour's position, I will deal with three separate kinds of business partnerships: first. work experience programs; second, the supply of human resources; and third, the supply of material and financial resources.

Labour supports work experience and mentoring programs, provided that they meet certain criteria. First, the students must not be taking the place of regular employees. In other words, students must not simply be used as a source of cheap temporary labour. Secondly, the work experience must not simply reflect employers concerns and needs. Education about workers' rights to decent wages, job security and a safe and healthy work environment must be a part of all work experience programs. The Edmonton & District Labour Council has already been active in providing union 'mentors' for students in work experience programs.

In the same vein, we welcome open debate on economic, social and political issues within our schools - so long as differing views and perspectives are incorporated. It's laudable that the business community is prepared to address issues in our schools - but it is essential to remember that theirs is only one perspective and that other views must have equal opportunity to counterbalance the business community's presentations. Social justice organizations and labour are two obvious 'other' voices that should be heard.

Neither do we have any problems with the presence of volunteers from the business community to read, tutor and assist in our schools – just as we have no problem with anyone else from the community taking an active role in our schools within acceptable parameters.

However, it is in the final category of business partnerships – where corporations provide financial or material resources to schools – where the labour movement has some very real reservations and concerns.

Commercial presence within the public school system is extremely hazardous, we suggest, to the continuing integrity of public education. Regardless of the scale of these arrangements, the precedent of commercial presence in the schools is a slippery slope that leads to the kind of commercial exploitation currently afflicting American public schools.

As George Kaplan, an American education policy analyst, observed: "Over the past decade or so, schoolpeople across the country have observed a growing parade of advertisements on or near school property, heavy product promotion in classroom materials, and a stupefying variety of business-sponsored contests and incentive programs." According to Kaplan, "If there is a gimmick for pushing products in the schools that business does not employ, it is only because no one has thought of it yet."

Allowing businesses to promote products within a 'captive' classroom setting is only one of the problems that accompanies these types of business partnerships.

Because Edmonton public schools operate on a 'school-based budgeting' system, each school is free to make its own business partnerships on whatever terms it can negotiate within district criteria. This may sound attractive on the surface, but there are some hidden consequences. The first is a loss of equality of educational experience in our schools. For example, if school 'A' cuts a deal with a computer company and receives a half million dollars of equipment – that's wonderful for the students at that particular school. But what of all the students at schools which cannot afford computers? What about inner-city schools, already confronting more severe educational problems and financial constraints than other schools? Isn't it likely that they will have more need of business partnership resources while at the same time be less likely to attract those resources?

The consequences of individual schools pursuing their own business partnerships are an inevitable inequality of programs and educational experience between each and every school – something that directly contradicts the basic principles of public education.

There is also a hidden problem of dependency inherent in the provision of material or financial resources by business. If a school launches a program with these resources, it will only be able to continue to run the programs if it can continue to receive business support year after year. This could leave schools open to acceding to business demands or proposals that would not normally be considered.

I think we need to clearly examine the underlying rationale for the pursuit of business partnerships. As the Edmonton Public School Board states in its background paper, business partnerships are seen as a means to "supplement our dwindling sources of funding."

In other words, it is the funding cuts from the provincial government, and, in the case of the public school boards. the loss of control over the local tax base, that has suddenly made business partnerships so attractive.

The question in front of educators, trustees and parents is really whether or not the pursuit of corporate support is the appropriate response to the funding crisis in public education. Perhaps an ongoing and sustained public education campaign designed to create pressure on the government to restore funding would be a more principled and pro-active response. If business is really serious about supporting public education with no strings attched, they should be wililng to join such a campaign.

I think that I have fairly voiced labour's concerns and objections to some types of business partnerships. I believe the EPSB should seriously reconsider its current policy on business partnerships.

Unfortunately, I think it unlikely that the Edmonton Public School Board will reverse its position based upon labour's input. That being the case, we suggest the following guidelines for business partnerships that will protect the integrity of public education:

Programs of corporate involvement meet an identified educational purpose, not a commercial motive. Sponsored teaching resources and materials are evaluated for bias before they are used. Corporate involvement does not require students to observe, listen to, or read advertising. Sponsor recognition and corporation logos are for identification rather than commercial purposes, and therefore are kept to a minimum. Corporate involvement does not increase inequality in the education system. Monies and other kinds of donations are made to school districts, to be administered centrally, not to individual schools. Partnership agreements are reached after full discussion among participating school staff, parent representatives, and the prospective partner, and any agreements are open as public information. Partnership agreements are for a limited time. All partnership agreements are systematically evaluated by impartial third parties. Teacher and student participation in partnerships is voluntary. Educators should not sit down one-on-one with business groups. Other societal sectors should always be present in partnership consultations that affect the direction of education. Corporate "partners" should not receive tax deductions, product promotion, free labour, or the right to influence curriculum or education policy as a result of their participation in education activities. Initiatives to help prepare students for work are important. Planning for these should include labour as well as business and should be broadly conceived so as to include an understanding of health and safety, workers' compensation, the role of unions and the rights of workers.

These guidelines might seem overly restrictive, however, when dealing with our childrens' education I believe that we have to err on the side of caution.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present labour's perspective on this issue and hope you will take the time to consider our recommendations seriously.

Thank you.