The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) met in Edmonton this past May for the second National Consultation on Education "Accountability in Education." The university and college sector was very much on the ministers' minds. From one point of view, this was a good thing, for the Edmonton meeting spoke with one voice: the main job of education in this fin-de-siŠcle is to make critically-minded citizens generally educated, practically well-prepared for changing times, and provided with strong foundations in various fields of knowledge.

If ministers were listening, we in the universities have little to fear, and much work to do. The great question is, were the ministers listening?

The 250-plus participants at Edmonton (not counting ministers and high civil servants) came from every corner of the post-secondary education community. There were teachers, parents, students, business people, organized labour, school boards, university presidents, and boards of governors. We came from every province and region and from many groups and minorities, visible and invisible. All we participants were surprised to find how much we were at one. We all want accessible, affordable, transparently governed, adequately funded and socially responsible public education at all levels.

We also want accountability. By this we mean accountability to the public interest, to the demands of the whole community, not accountability as the "bean-counters" would like it.

Some of Canada's ministers of education have a problem, for this was not the message they expected to hear. At least some ministers thought the system should be opened to market forces, competition, and forceful measures of accountability. These same ministers thought the Edmonton "consultation" would agree. It did not, and that is "the problem."

We had a first inkling of ministerial predilections at the opening session. William Thorsell of The Globe and Mail claimed that Canadian education quality is in free-fall. Like several later speakers, he further opined that statistical tests should be imposed, and that the "customers" of universities and colleges should rule the roost.

On the other hand, a well-informed minority of speakers at this and other sessions (among them the Principal of Bishop's University, the President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, two students, and a university president turned businessman) vigorously argued the opposite. For these speakers, the great problems of public education are access, open governance, and shared goals and objectives. If we are to be held accountable (and we will), then let us be accountable on these fronts.

So the struggle was between the bean-counters and the democrats; bean-counters may be democrats, but in the heat of debate in Edmonton that point was sometimes lost from view.

The consultation gave at least a third of its time and energy to accountability in post-secondary education. With Alberta and Ontario far advanced in the development of performance indicators, and given national interest in post-secondary education, the ministers must have thought that the Edmonton meeting would advance the great cause.

It was no surprise then, to read Jennifer Lewington in The Globe and Mail (May 21) recounting one minister's view of the Edmonton meeting. The minister's interpretation was that the consultation came out four-square for performance indicators! But the meeting did NOT come out this way. The minister was indulging in a little wishful thinking. This tale suggests that CMEC was from the start not quite open to the popular will.

Those of us who made the trek to Edmonton have work to do. It seems our message is not getting through. Yet, for the first time since Confederation, provincial ministers have in CMEC a framework for truly cooperative governance in higher and public education. That alone is encouraging.

Besides, not all ministers are fixated on statistics and accounting; some, perhaps most, understand that quality education requires strong moral and financial support, and that it flourishes best under free and transparent self-government.

The ministers have the promise of participation from all the crucial players in the sector. CAUT is one of those players.

Although the ministers may not have heard what they wanted in May, they have been presented with a rare opportunity: to listen, to cooperate, and to act. So have we all.