Toward the end of the 2005-06 academic year, my colleagues and I were presented with a survey/census for us to complete. The objective of the census was to determine if the hiring practices of my board were "equitable" - and presumably if they were not, to look into the means of addressing the situation. The survey was entirely voluntary, although it was hoped that we would fill it out thus giving them a more "accurate" picture of the diversity of educators.
Typical of the board, their intentions are reasonable, but their efforts are not necessarily grounded in any kind of critical analysis. There are fundamentally two flawed assumptions with their approach:
1. The first problem lies in the assumption that there is a diverse body of potential candidates to draw upon. This is difficult to believe given the nature of public education, higher education, and teachers' college, not to mention the interests and career choices of potential candidates. Therefore, in surveying current employees, one must assume that all cultural, ethnic, racial, and sexual groups are all equally represented in the teacher pool of candidates to hire from.
2. But let's give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know that there is already the above mentioned flaw. Let's assume that what they are trying to measure, is that in spite of the disproportions in the candidacy pool, their own hiring practices reveal a fairly reasonable level of diversity. Well, based on the questions asked on the survey, the word "diversity" is being used in its current PC guise - namely through qualities like race, culture, ethnicity, as well as sexual orientation. There were certainly no questions with regards to:
A) Philosophy of Education;
B) Economic class (at least growing up);
C) Whether or not educators had entered the profession directly from their own educational training, or whether they had spent limited or significant amount of time doing other occupations or careers;
D) How many have parents and/or other family members who are educators;
E) How many did poorly in school;
and a host of other potential qualifiers that could expand the word "diversity" beyond its current superficial meaning.
It is dangerous to assume that a visually or sexually diverse labour force represents a diversity of ideology. For one thing, if they all accept the institutional nature of public education, then how is that diverse? I maintain that a public system of education that imposes a limited and narrow curriculum in a hierarchical and authoritative manner; that is more concerned about behaviour control and ranking of humans than the right to self-determination, exists to support and preserve power and privilege within a small percentage of the population. A "diverse" body of educators defined by PC terminology does nothing to undermine or subvert the current structure - it does more to keep it in tact as these superficial appearances seem to suggest a "diverse" institution.
I have always supported the emancipation of marginalized voices - namely through the emancipation of the students - who truly represent a diverse and often marginalized population.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Letter to Toronto Star Editor
The following is a response to an editorial in The Toronto Star which defended report cards - and lots of them - for the benefit of parents and understanding how their children are doing. The editorial follows my response:
As an editor of The Toronto Star, I'm sure you are thoroughly indoctrinated in the belief that grades actually mean something other than how well one conforms to order and discipline, and your support of more of them in "Ill-advised move to cut report cards" (and your current employment) prove how well the indoctrination works.
My position as a public high school teacher (and a parent of three young children) is that marks are simply the currency used in the business of education and that they not only interfere with learning, they seriously hamper it. Enforcing educators in a so-called democratic nation do ANY formal ranking is grotesque in the least, inhuman at most. The mere thought that one can put some numeric value on knowledge is absurd. Clearly, the numbering is used as a ranking system for obedience to authority. When any teacher (including myself) tells a parent that "Their child can certainly do better - they are just not trying..." the subtext is that their child is desperately holding on to free will and not capitulating to the authority of the teacher, or the narrow curriculum, or the ridiculous assessment models, or the confines of a cramped classroom or being made to sit idle on their behinds for most of the day, and/or any other mandates by the Ministry of Education. If anything, these students should be applauded for holding on to their humanity rather than being treated as a widget whose high marks are supposed to mean some kind of quality product rating in effectiveness or other "value."
But sadly, if they don't comply, they put their membership in the "educated" class at risk - and as the saying goes, "Membership has its privileges"...like becoming a teacher...or an editor of corporate media.
-------------------------
Editorial: Ill-advised move to cut report cards
Aug. 17, 2006
One idea that Ontario Education Minister Sandra Pupatello should reject firmly — and immediately — is a proposal by public elementary teachers to cut the number of report cards from three to two a year.
The proposal received overwhelming support yesterday from the more than 600 delegates at the annual meeting of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, which represents 70,000 teachers and education workers. Teachers complain it takes too long to fill out three report cards a year and that their time could be better spent teaching children.
Currently, public elementary school teachers prepare three report cards, one in December, one in March and one in June. By contrast, high school teachers prepare four reports a year, which include final report cards at the end of both semesters, plus mid-term "progress" reports.
Instead of a report card in December, some elementary teachers favour an informal progress report with general comments, but no grades.
"Filling out formal report cards takes a lot of time that teachers could spend in more meaningful communications with parents," says Emily Noble, president of the federation.
Yes, it takes time to prepare report cards. But for many parents, regular and timely report cards are the only way they have to assess the progress of their children, especially in the earliest grades. Report cards are a vital tool by which parents can determine where they should be helping their child, such as working on their spelling or math.
And unless their child is a problem in school, most parents rarely, if ever, hear from the teachers or the school during the academic year.
Indeed, some parents want more reports, not fewer. The Society for Quality Education, a non-profit group, wants teachers to issue report cards every month, like some private schools do. And Annie Kidder, head of the provincial parent group People for Education, says parents have a right to know early in the school year how their children are doing.
For her part, Pupatello says the proposal may have some merit, especially if it means teachers will spend more time with their students.
Everyone wants teachers to spend as much time teaching as possible. But teachers have failed to offer a convincing argument why fewer report cards are better for parents and students. Vague words about wanting more time for "meaningful communication" are, in fact, meaningless, unless accompanied by a detailed plan on how it will be achieved. Without such a plan, this idea looks more like a bid to cut teachers' workloads, rather than help parents better understand how their child is doing.
What teachers should be doing is seeking ways to increase the number of reports and assessments they send home because parents have a right to know as much about their child's performance in school as possible.
For the sake of parents and students, Pupatello should reject this idea.
As an editor of The Toronto Star, I'm sure you are thoroughly indoctrinated in the belief that grades actually mean something other than how well one conforms to order and discipline, and your support of more of them in "Ill-advised move to cut report cards" (and your current employment) prove how well the indoctrination works.
My position as a public high school teacher (and a parent of three young children) is that marks are simply the currency used in the business of education and that they not only interfere with learning, they seriously hamper it. Enforcing educators in a so-called democratic nation do ANY formal ranking is grotesque in the least, inhuman at most. The mere thought that one can put some numeric value on knowledge is absurd. Clearly, the numbering is used as a ranking system for obedience to authority. When any teacher (including myself) tells a parent that "Their child can certainly do better - they are just not trying..." the subtext is that their child is desperately holding on to free will and not capitulating to the authority of the teacher, or the narrow curriculum, or the ridiculous assessment models, or the confines of a cramped classroom or being made to sit idle on their behinds for most of the day, and/or any other mandates by the Ministry of Education. If anything, these students should be applauded for holding on to their humanity rather than being treated as a widget whose high marks are supposed to mean some kind of quality product rating in effectiveness or other "value."
But sadly, if they don't comply, they put their membership in the "educated" class at risk - and as the saying goes, "Membership has its privileges"...like becoming a teacher...or an editor of corporate media.
-------------------------
Editorial: Ill-advised move to cut report cards
Aug. 17, 2006
One idea that Ontario Education Minister Sandra Pupatello should reject firmly — and immediately — is a proposal by public elementary teachers to cut the number of report cards from three to two a year.
The proposal received overwhelming support yesterday from the more than 600 delegates at the annual meeting of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, which represents 70,000 teachers and education workers. Teachers complain it takes too long to fill out three report cards a year and that their time could be better spent teaching children.
Currently, public elementary school teachers prepare three report cards, one in December, one in March and one in June. By contrast, high school teachers prepare four reports a year, which include final report cards at the end of both semesters, plus mid-term "progress" reports.
Instead of a report card in December, some elementary teachers favour an informal progress report with general comments, but no grades.
"Filling out formal report cards takes a lot of time that teachers could spend in more meaningful communications with parents," says Emily Noble, president of the federation.
Yes, it takes time to prepare report cards. But for many parents, regular and timely report cards are the only way they have to assess the progress of their children, especially in the earliest grades. Report cards are a vital tool by which parents can determine where they should be helping their child, such as working on their spelling or math.
And unless their child is a problem in school, most parents rarely, if ever, hear from the teachers or the school during the academic year.
Indeed, some parents want more reports, not fewer. The Society for Quality Education, a non-profit group, wants teachers to issue report cards every month, like some private schools do. And Annie Kidder, head of the provincial parent group People for Education, says parents have a right to know early in the school year how their children are doing.
For her part, Pupatello says the proposal may have some merit, especially if it means teachers will spend more time with their students.
Everyone wants teachers to spend as much time teaching as possible. But teachers have failed to offer a convincing argument why fewer report cards are better for parents and students. Vague words about wanting more time for "meaningful communication" are, in fact, meaningless, unless accompanied by a detailed plan on how it will be achieved. Without such a plan, this idea looks more like a bid to cut teachers' workloads, rather than help parents better understand how their child is doing.
What teachers should be doing is seeking ways to increase the number of reports and assessments they send home because parents have a right to know as much about their child's performance in school as possible.
For the sake of parents and students, Pupatello should reject this idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)