Critique of Saskatchewan's Education Policy in 2025
Saskatchewan's education policy in 2025 remains a subject of growing debate, particularly as social, economic, and political tensions converge around public schooling. While the province has long prided itself on maintaining a locally responsive and community centered education system, recent decisions made by the Ministry of Education under Premier Scott Moe’s government have raised serious concerns about inclusivity, curriculum relevance, and centralized political influence. A closer analysis reveals a policy approach that is increasingly reactive, ideologically motivated, and misaligned with the evolving needs of both students and educators.
One of the most controversial aspects of the province’s education policy has been its stance on gender identity and parental rights in schools. The Saskatchewan government introduced legislation in 2023 and reaffirmed it through 2024 and into 2025, requiring parental consent before schools could address students by names or pronouns different from those assigned at birth. Framed by the government as protecting “parental involvement,” this policy has drawn sharp criticism from educators, mental health professionals, and civil liberties organizations. Critics argue it undermines student safety particularly for transgender and non binary youth and may violate constitutional protections. The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation and national child advocacy groups have warned that the policy could push vulnerable students away from trusted adults in the school system, leading to increased isolation and mental health risks.
Another concern is the province’s growing use of centralized curriculum reforms that appear to reflect political agendas rather than evidence based pedagogy. Saskatchewan’s recent overhaul of its social studies and health curricula has been marked by a shift toward what some have described as “traditionalist” content. Indigenous leaders, historians, and education researchers have pointed to a softening in how colonial history, residential schools, and systemic racism are addressed in classrooms. Despite commitments to truth and reconciliation, the updated curriculum has been criticized for lacking Indigenous voices and perspectives in its design and implementation. This failure contradicts calls from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which emphasized the need for Indigenous led curriculum reform to promote healing and understanding in Canadian classrooms.
Funding allocation is another chronic issue. Although the province has increased education spending on paper, much of it has failed to keep pace with inflation and population growth. School divisions across Saskatchewan have repeatedly flagged inadequate per student funding, especially in rural and northern communities where costs of transportation, special education, and student supports are higher. Class sizes have risen in many schools, and programs like mental health support, arts education, and extracurricular activities have suffered cuts. Teachers have raised concerns about burnout and unsustainable workloads, while school boards have found themselves caught between growing needs and stagnant budgets.
Moreover, Saskatchewan’s education policy lacks a clear and forward looking strategy for post pandemic learning recovery. The COVID 19 pandemic exposed and deepened existing inequities in access to quality education, particularly in remote and Indigenous communities. Yet as of 2025, the province has not developed a comprehensive, data driven strategy to address learning loss or invest in modernized infrastructure. While other provinces have launched targeted literacy and numeracy campaigns, digital learning tools, and trauma informed professional development, Saskatchewan has lagged behind in creating a vision that supports educational resilience in the long term.
Another overlooked area is the recruitment and retention of educators. Saskatchewan faces a teacher shortage crisis that is only expected to worsen. Young educators often leave the profession or move to other provinces due to lower salaries, limited support, and a perceived lack of respect from policymakers. Rather than addressing these structural issues, the government has focused on increasing student assessments and standardized testing moves that are widely seen by educators as bureaucratic and misaligned with student centered learning. Without significant investment in teacher training, mentorship, and professional autonomy, Saskatchewan risks a decline in education quality and student outcomes over the coming decade.
Finally, the overall tone and direction of Saskatchewan’s education policy suggest a narrowing of space for local decision making and democratic input. The government has on several occasions bypassed consultation with teachers, school boards, and Indigenous representatives when making major policy changes. This top down approach erodes trust between stakeholders and undermines the principles of transparency and collaboration that are essential in a public education system. Education is not merely a tool for workforce development; it is a social good that should reflect diverse community needs, cultural perspectives, and the dynamic realities of a changing world.
In conclusion, while Saskatchewan’s education policy attempts to address contemporary challenges, it often does so through an ideological and centralized lens that prioritizes control over creativity, and restriction over responsiveness. If the province is to build an education system fit for the future, it must recommit to equity, evidence based practice, teacher voice, and the lived experiences of students across its diverse communities. Education should not be a battleground for political posturing but a platform for empowerment, inclusion, and critical thinking.