The bitter conflict that has torn the public school community apart for the past 40 years formally began in 1972. At that time, the executive of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF) unleashed its considerable financial clout and organizing abilities to defeat W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit government, an old regime past its prime. The federation's ambitious economic and social aspirations, along with its political "conversion to partisanship" (as one scholar aptly termed it), marked the first formal declarations of a war that has raged ever since.

After four decades of public rancor and mistrust between federation executives and governments of all political stripes, the conversation about public schools has degenerated into simplistic and rarely useful discussions about resources -- or more often, the lack thereof. Year after year, the BCTF and some trustee boards insist that schools are badly underfunded. Year after year, the province parades out statistics illustrating increased levels of fiscal support, despite shrinking school populations.

Amid teachers' job actions, political posturing on both sides and the language of distraction that prevents true debate, one thing is clear: neither the teachers' federation nor government is really addressing the core issues confronting public schools, the things that really matter in the 21st century.

Here's where Premier Clark can make a serious difference with her "families first" agenda: by decisively addressing the fundamental problems of the schools and by providing a sound policy platform to go forward.

Putting students on a level playing field

Let's start with equity -- the ideal of providing all children with equal opportunities to succeed. The government has allowed the value of the Foundation Skills Assessment Program (FSAs) to be marginalized in the face of teacher resistance. This deprives us of the assurances we need that youngsters in Pouce Coupé or Atlin are receiving the same quality programs and performing as well as their urban counterparts in Point Grey or Oak Bay.

Perfect or not, the FSAs at least provide some measure of assurance about educational quality, particularly now in the absence of external school inspection and accreditation. Those, too, are always an option and should not easily be dismissed, even if it means resurrecting structures we threw away not so long ago.

Among other things, the FSAs show us that as early as Grade 4, schools can identify youngsters who fail to meet expectations. These children have a much smaller chance of completing high school than do those who meet or exceed expectations. We urgently need to know these things. Getting rid of such tests hides the facts, hides our failures and deludes us about how well we are preparing our children.

If we believe in giving even the poorest kids from the poorest regions of the province a level playing field from which to start their lives, we simply must have good information about their school performance. With this information in hand, schools must then be able to provide instruction to ensure the success of students facing difficulties. Educational equity is the cornerstone of democratic living and must be monitored and protected.

In the interests of equity, government could ensure that local education agreements (LEAs) are reached between First Nations and boards of education. After 17 years of talk, agreements have not been reached with all boards. As matters stand, we continue to provide targeted funding to boards for aboriginal children with no requirement that boards demonstrate improved performance on the part of these youngsters.

This kind of equity is only rhetorical. Why should we give resources to institutions without proper accountability mechanisms? Perhaps, in the interest of "families first," we might be better advised to give the money directly to aboriginal families and allow them to purchase high-quality compensatory school programs or services. In a nutshell, we should be supporting families, not institutions.

Attracting more international students

Government's recent cancellation of "exit" exams in high schools, a decision influenced by universities, should likewise be re-examined. Most high-performing educational jurisdictions around the world maintain such exams. They provide good curriculum guidance to teachers and students and ensure an equitable assessment of students, regardless of location, race or social class.

Exit exams also create an environment attractive to the parents of large numbers of international students who choose to pursue a high school education in British Columbia. Why would we want to forgo the long-term benefits arising from the interaction between our own youngsters and these foreign visitors (never mind the tuition and room and board they bring to B.C.)? Again, it simply doesn't make sense.

We should not reduce the controls that best symbolize the quality of our system; we should not enact policies that will reduce the number of international students coming here. If our own youngsters are to be strategically prepared for the 21st century, they need first-hand knowledge of its cultural diversity. This will enable them to engage in the spirit of internationalism in social affairs and commerce that is already transforming their lives.

Competing with the best in the world

Nor should we become too complacent about our recent successes in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), tests that indicate the scholastic performance of 15-year-olds. While 2009 results continued to show Canadian and British Columbian youngsters faring reasonably well, we appear to be standing still while jurisdictions like Shanghai and Hong Kong surge to the top. The competition is clearly getting stiffer. Without meeting higher standards of academic excellence, we will be unable to attract foreign students and, no doubt, the capital investment necessary to grow knowledge-intensive industries.