Upstart Crow

RHSA 2007 Fringe Reviews

2007-03-03T20:21:00.000-05:00

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST

I have decided to take the time to make reviews of the shows. It is something I have wanted to institute for a while but never got around to it, or was always debating if it were an educative choice. My fear is that it would set up too much competition amongst students - and Heaven knows we have far too much of that already through numerical ranking. I have concluded that there is value in such an exercise because this course promotes itself at being a production course and as such we expose your work to an audience for a price. Any artist who does this, must be expected to stand up to critique. More importantly, as students you deserve well-grounded criticism. I've always said that those who thought my work was "great" or "crap" didn't particularly help me grow as an artist. Those who recognized my strengths and weaknesses and were honest enough to tell me were always of benefit to me. In fact, if you are a reflective artist, chances are you already know where your strengths and weaknesses are.

Another point: It is NOT mandatory to read these reviews. There are many artists who prefer not to read reviews and please respect the wishes of your peers if they do not wish to know. I realize that is difficult given our environment, but as in many other things, I am entrusting you with this task.

If you decide to read the reviews keep in mind the following:
1. First and foremost, I am proud of all of you for your accomplishments. The Fringe was very successful and it is due to your efforts. Even though I thought some productions stronger than others the most important thing to remember is YOU made it happen and everyone should feel proud of that.
2. The reviews are NOT an indication of your mark.
3. Most importantly, they are the review of ONE person on ONE particular night/afternoon. Yes, I realize that I am not just "anyone" but I have my own bias when it comes to what I find entertaining.

The rating scheme I used is the following:
***** Standing ovation
**** Sustained applause
*** Recommended, memorable scenes
** Seriously flawed, needs more rehearsals and/or dramaturgy
* Get out the hook

Finally, I encourage you to write your own critical reviews. If you click on the "Comments" section at the bottom of each review you may write whatever you want - so long as it is not vulgar or attacking to anyone involved in the production.

Adapt Me

2007-03-03T20:15:00.001-05:00

Adapt Me **
Although there were some problems with Alison’s script and the director Sharm is only in Grade 11, what really damaged this production were the performances. This production was like poor scene work being presented for a drama class where the students are completely unmotivated and they prepared it at the last second. Sharm has to take some responsibility for not soliciting guidance and assistance, but the lead performers in particular brought very little in terms of character understanding and development. Admittedly, there were a few sincere moments from Lucas, Yasmin, and Chris. Sharm did succeed however in making a functional and often creative set – loved the use of the chair to create an oven (although hated the rotary dial phone – don’t we have a modern looking phone in props?) as well as top marks for using blue warmers for scene changes. Misha’s costumes were not distinct enough; it is always difficult to have students playing older characters so costumes and make-up need to help with that transition. In terms of the script, there was a bit of a hole when it came to the relationship between John and Marc. Does John know about Marc? That needs to be addressed in the script.

Living for Tomorrow

2007-03-03T20:14:00.000-05:00

Living for Tomorrow ***1/2
Walker’s odd script turns out to be the surprise gem of the Festival due to the grounded and sincere performances by Casey, Daniel, Alison, and especially Adrianna – whose role as the supreme bitch enhanced more than one scene. Support by Caitlin, Keenan, Andy and Katharine rounded out the bizarre quirkiness of this script. I’m guessing the intention was to write a drama, but there is nothing to be ashamed of if it turns into a successful comedy – and that is exactly what happened here. Except for Morgan and Jason, all of the characters are two-dimensional or send-ups of “types” – even the plot device of the “virus” is something we cannot take seriously. But that’s okay, because it was all delightful filler for the romantic centre: a young girl who is forced to reflect on her own “type” and discover she is not a nice person. And in the end, the boy she used is the one who helps her to redeem herself. Sappy?...sure, but who doesn’t like a nice sappy story if it is re-told with fun and frolic? Justine’s direction was acceptable – she balanced the stage well enough, she just seemed to rely on two seated locations a bit too much. And again, there were too many silent scene transitions, although Justine does get credit for having a couple of nice sound cues. Adrianna provided an effective set for the various locations that did not require a lot of time to set up and Casey’s costumes were appropriate enough, although she could have given herself some shoes as well as pants with pockets because…the prop award that most consistently upstaged a performance goes to Casey’s cell phone as she continually stored it in her bra. I don’t know if that is a “thing” that women do, but trust me, on stage it was totally distracting. For me, it would have been the equivalent of seeing a man store a cell phone in his crotch.

Ulterior Motives

2007-03-03T20:13:00.002-05:00

Ulterior Motives ****1/2
Chris’s script accomplished what no other script in the Festival did: it left us wanting more. The combined story of the playwright’s life becoming parallel with his characters is one that easily could have been expanded into an hour long script. Both plots were interesting and we wanted to be entertained longer by their respective stories. It was particularly enjoyable when Bradshaw joins Flint in the shared dialogue. In the all too brief thirty minutes, we are introduced to some great characters and all performed admirably by Lydia, Chris, Kyle, and Jackson. In particular, Lucina’s performance as the femme fatale was one of the strongest performances of the Festival – she was absolutely hypnotic to watch. Caitlin must be commended for her directing acumen and fostering a positive and strong ensemble feel to the cast. Lucas’s costumes fit the genre perfectly – although something felt odd about Lucina’s red dress (was it supposed to be a bare back, sans bra?), and Lydia sets the stage for the apartment in her design efficiently and effectively. And of course, what’s not to love about an old-style typewriter? The only major criticism is that Ulterior Motives seemed to suffer from the same disease that has been endemic to the entire Festival this year – no transitional music to help fill in awkward scene transitions as well as complement the vision and genre.

Reconstruction Site

2007-03-03T20:13:00.001-05:00

Reconstruction Site ***
Llyandra's script falls into the "all talk no action" category of plays. What begins as an interesting concept - a homeless person advertising to provide help for others - winds up as a therapy session with little evidence of a story. On the positive side, there are some redeeming bits of dialogue that explores the idea of empathy. Surprisingly, the humour comes more from Caitlin's performance than it does from the script. This play was in serious need of dramaturgy which Josh must take some responsibility for. I will say it was a brave choice to go with the empty space (does that really qualify for set design?) and Josh maintained an adequate use of it, but it was definitely crying for more. Given the fact that the "set" seemed contained in the grocery cart, there was a missed opportunity at drawing more props/aids from it. Clearly the foam hand was an audience pleaser, and that could have been an integral part of the play: visual aids the homeless person continues to pull out of the cart in order to "help" the corporate client. In fact, the theme of "relying on props" (i.e. "crutches") in our lives could have helped to hammer the homeless woman's point home even further. I was also surprised that the script did not take more advantage of the fact that they were two female characters - the text seemed to not really address sex or gender - not that it had to make a "big" issue of either, but as any feminist would argue (and I would tend to agree)…gender is ALWAYS an issue and thus could have informed another layer to the characters. Mia’s and Caitlin’s performances were for the most part well executed but also suffered occasionally from weak pacing. Costumes were appropriate - absolutely loved the Presbyterian shirt. And Reconstruction Site wins the gold medal for best entrance of a character in the Fringe Festival: Caitlin being wheeled on inside the cart.

The Definition of Family

2007-03-03T20:12:00.000-05:00

The Definition of Family ****1/2
The success of this show lies not in the presentation as a whole, but on the superb parts. For starters, Emma gets top marks for writing the most sensitive and mature dialogue I’ve heard from a teenager in years. Emma did what I thought was not possible for a teenager: write intelligent and sympathetic dialogue for both teenagers AND adults/parents. I cannot stress how impressed I was with this achievement. And it must be added that good character/dialogue only works in the hands of good performers. Caitlin and Alison were riveting as the mother/daughter combo and not one line was ever a throwaway. Lauren must be given full credit for creating the strongest ensemble cast in the festival. The show would have been amazing if only for Caitlin and Alison, but they were ably supported by great and emotionally balanced performances from Sasha, Jesse, Marina, and Eliza. That said, not everything was perfect. The script was too episodic – it should have had fewer, longer scenes instead of several short scenes. This resulted in too many blackouts which contained NO music to bridge the transitions. The lack of transitional music was Lauren’s one major flaw as a director. And although Emma succeeded in having strong dialogue, she occasionally drifted into melodrama – but given the fact that she had demonstrated she was capable of more, I have little doubt that she could edit something stronger in future drafts. Caitlin’s set was functional enough, but the chairs were a detail that should have been looked into. With such a polished production, the brown chairs just didn’t cut it. On the other hand, Sasha’s costume design was very appropriate and complemented the characters very well without distracting too much (i.e. Eliza’s wig).

Room

2007-03-03T20:06:00.002-05:00

Room ***
Sammy’s script certainly receives high marks for clever and humourous dialogue – in fact some of the most creative and enjoyable in the festival. It needs development in a couple of areas: minor characters needed more development and the ending seemed abrupt and unfinished. The biggest flaw was that Keenan, Jesse, and Jackson raced through their lines resulting in missed gems of dialogue. Their characterizations were quite enjoyable, they simply need to work on slowing down and articulating the text – I recommend vocal exercises that stress consonant pronounciation. In terms of direction, it felt like there was little. I can be somewhat forgiving since Sean is only in Grade 11 but on the other hand, he should have solicited assistance now and again from either a teacher or a Grade 12 whose directorial eye he respected. It seemed clear that the boys were told to either sit or stand at certain points, but not much else. Support cast (Misha, Emily, Niki, and Tamo) were commendable with what they had to work with; Jesse’s set was fairly non-descript and assembled together hodge-podge; and Niki’s costumes were fun and helped to delineate characters.

Theft on Third

2007-03-03T20:06:00.001-05:00

Theft on Third ***1/2
I will start off by saying something positive about Sammy’s performance and that is: in spite of not being prepared, he at least had the courage and recognition of his responsibility that he go on the stage and fulfill his commitment. I will give him credit for that – not much else – but I will give him credit for that. Now it would be remiss of me to NOT state that his unprepared performance brought the quality of the show down – this could have easily been a 4 or 41/2 star show if it were not for that. More importantly, Sammy is an intelligent young man and a pretty fine actor and I would love to see him make a serious commitment as I feel he would have done a tremendous job – as indicated by the occasional moments where he was comfortable enough with his lines that he could actually act a little in role. What really made this show was the fairly sharp and intelligent private eye script by Evan and Marina’s solid direction. Her use of the stage, the intimate blocking, and the whole Maltese Falcon feel was exquisite. Two criticisms though: the script was still a bit muddy at Vitelli’s house and the background music often interfered with the dialogue. There is nothing wrong with keeping music on in the background – especially given the genre – but simply lower the volume during scenes and then raise it during transitions. In terms of performance, where Sammy lacked in preparedness, Khadeja was an inspiration and a role model for others to learn from as she captured the femme fatale magnificently. Susan, Daniel and Emma provided strong support in their respective genre-specific archetypal roles and Eliza’s set and Misha’s costumes rounded out the vision beautifully.

Salad Dressing

2007-03-03T20:05:00.002-05:00

Salad Dressing **
Very simply, Salad Dressing came across as needing more rehearsals and a re-evaluation of the script. The pacing was awful and much of the dialogue seemed improvised – I don’t know whether that was due to performers not knowing their lines, or the fact that they were paraphrasing lines and improvising others. Set changes were sloppy and transitions were awkward. The script itself needs re-working. Amy’s intention – as revealed by Brendan’s monologue in the beginning – is a great springboard for a play about high school. Of course the play becomes quirky and often vulgar – which is fine, but then it needs balance. The touching speech by Brendan in the end offered some redemption but the script would have been served better with more of those self-reflective moments sprinkled gingerly throughout the story. Jenny’s direction was hit and miss. She often balanced the stage well enough, but the finer blocking details were left unattended. Often it looked like the leads were simply creating their blocking on the spot. However, in the role of costume designer, Jenny did an excellent job outfitting her cast with provocative and humourous apparel. Yasmin’s set was imaginative and often decorative – I loved the lockers.

5 Ice Caps and a Gun

2007-03-03T20:05:00.001-05:00

5 Ice Caps and a Gun ***
Blue’s script is arguably the strongest comic script in the festival. He has an incredible talent at writing witty one-liners as well as fantastic situation comedy. And he is also able to establish and maintain a variety of characters with individual voices. Probably the biggest problem with his script is that it is beyond the skill of the performers in our class. I have often said that comedy is much more difficult than drama – the essence of timing and character requires knowing the script cold, as well as hours of dedication to create a character beyond oneself. And in situation comedy, it requires an incredible ensemble relationship – like the starting line of a championship hockey team. Although many of the actors commendably strived for this – especially Luke, Jared, and Tamo – in the end none of them did the script justice. In fact, many of the performers need to stop relying on playing themselves if they are serious about their craft and their responsibility of fulfilling the director’s vision and bringing to life the playwright’s characters and words. Lucina’s and Ciaran’s direction was spotty. There were many times where balance and interesting blocking were established, but just as many other times where static seating lead to a disengaging presentation. Probably the biggest gaps were the shift in time with blackouts and no accompanying music to fill the dead void. But worst of all was the empty stage voiceover in the end. What a missed opportunity for a unique curtain call: the guys could have lined up and moved forward at the mention of their name – at least it would have provided some visible ACTION for the audience – and ACTION is the essence of theatre. Rachel’s costumes were perfect – especially given the low budget, and Jared’s set was practical and pleasing.

To Error

2007-03-03T20:03:00.001-05:00

To Error ***1/2
This script still needs a lot of work – but I do not say that disparagingly. Khadeja’s script in many respects is stronger than she realizes. This is one of those gems that needs and deserves to be seriously workshopped. The most exciting and mature concept is the relationship between Love and Death. Khadeja’s play was most fascinating when it was exploring this philosophical concept but was limited by its desire to satisfy the “3 Act Design.” At this point, I would recommend she free herself of that structure and simply explore her themes through dialogue/character and allow the structure to “emerge” through dramaturgical work. Matt’s performance was strong (as usual), but in this case, he tended to rush through the lines and he brought a nervous quality to the character that I don’t think suited Dante very well. Susan’s performance was very well grounded and she was often exciting to watch. My only criticism was that it seemed like she was sometimes self-conscious about her costume. Certainly the costume made her look sexy, but costume design should make sure that sexiness is not gained at the expense of the performance. That said, Kate’s other costumes were functional and appropriate. Jesse’s set was lovely – it was so simple yet I was completely convinced we were in a hospital room. Lily’s direction was often very sharp (good use of Kate as the mother) with the occasional blocking blip. Most importantly, she managed to develop an excellent relationship between Dante and Beatrice that is so essential to the play.

You Don't Mind

2007-03-03T19:39:00.000-05:00

You Don’t Mind ***
I thought the script could have used more locations. The restaurant set-up made it difficult to interpret plot and character development. That said, Conor’s direction must be commended for keeping the blocking varied and avoiding a lot of sitting. Lucas was up and down – as well as Sean – and the use of the waitress helped to keep things going. It felt like there was a missing scene when they attempted to break into the mental hospital and then end up back at the restaurant. As the Director, Conor should have asked for another scene and paired down the other ones or put in a quick pantomime with music – basically some kind of dumb show. Performances by Lucas, Misha, and Sean were strong – although sometimes not enough variance. The strong personalities helped to delineate between characters, but could sometimes railway over more subtle opportunities with relationships and individual arcs. Supporting performances were good as well: Leslie was fine as the doctor, however, the character itself had limitations – Jackson should have developed it more. Rachel, in particular, I thought was very natural and in future would like to see her tackle a larger role. Rachel’s costumes were darling and appropriate and Lydia’s set was functional and simple. I thought the tablecloth problematic – the wrinkles tended to upstage occasionally.

Angel Milk

2007-03-03T19:32:00.000-05:00

Angel Milk ***1/2
Overall, clever concept but flow was jerky. Sometimes it felt more like a collection of strong scenes that was in search of a strong spine. Direction was good – nice use of stage, visually appealing blocking, etc. Some scene transitions were awkward – but this was also a result of the writing. That said, as a Director, Lucas should have asked/worked with Hannah to clean these up. But Lucas did justice to the play’s “play within a play” or “script within a script” concept culminating in what was certainly the best curtain call of the Fringe Festival. Performances were strong – particularly Matt, Lydia, and Llyandra. In fact, very impressed with Matt – excellent quirkiness and physicality and good delivery – although, projection could be improved. Good supporting work from Yasmin, Lucas, Leslie, Lucas, and Justine. Good set (Adrianna) and costume design (why was Hannah doing costume design?) as well. Although, I’m still somewhat confused about the Carrie character and the section where she and Matt’s character were running around the stage. Most important, Hannah’s script had some really great comic writing and Lucas and his performers managed to deliver it in spades.

Mr. C's picks of the Fringe

2007-03-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

Best Comic writing:
Blue’s 5 Ice Caps and a Gun
Sammy’s Room (Honourable Mention)
Hannah’s Angel Milk (Honourable Mention)

Best Dramatic writing:
Emma’s The Definition of Family
Khadeja’s To Error (Honourable Mention)

Best Overall Story:
Chris’s Ulterior Motives
Evan’s Theft on Third (Honourable Mention)

Best Direction:
Marina for Theft on Third
Lauren for The Definition of Family (Honourable Mention)
Caitlin for Ulterior Motives (Honourable Mention)

Best dramatic performance – female:
Lucina in Ulterior Motives
Caitlin and Alison in The Definition of Family (Honourable Mention)
Khadeja in Theft on Third (Honourable Mention)
Susan in To Error (Honourable Mention)

Best comic performance – female:
Adrianna in Living for Tomorrow
Llyandra in Angel Milk (Honourable Mention)
Lydia in Angel Milk (Honourable Mention)
Caitlin in Reconstruction Site (Honourable Mention)

Best dramatic performance – male:
Sean in You Don’t Mind
Chris in Adapt Me (Honourable Mention)
Luke in 5 Ice Caps and a Gun (Honourable Mention)

Best comic performance – male:
Matt in Angel Milk
Jesse in Room (Honourable Mention)
Daniel in Living for Tomorrow (Honourable Mention)
Jared in 5 Ice Caps and a Gun (Honourable Mention)

Best Set Design:
Jesse for To Error
Yasmin for Salad Dressing (Honourable Mention)
Adrianna for Angel Milk (Honourable Mention)

Best Costume Design:
Misha for Theft on Third
Jenny for Salad Dressing (Honourable Mention)
Lucas for Ulterior Motives (Honourable Mention)
Rachel for 5 Ice Caps and a Gun (Honourable Mention)

RHSA Improv

2007-03-03T11:52:00.000-05:00

I did not review this show because it is not part of the Drama Production course, however, feel free to add your own thoughts.

Heaven is Distracting

2007-03-03T11:51:00.000-05:00

I did not review this show because it is not part of the Drama Production course, however, feel free to add your own thoughts.

The Mantel

2007-03-03T11:48:00.000-05:00

I did not review this show because it is not part of the Drama Production course, however, feel free to add your own thoughts.

Imposter Phenomenon

2006-10-01T20:38:00.000-04:00

The following is taken from Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_Syndrome):

The Impostor Syndrome, or Impostor Phenomenon, sometimes called Fraud Syndrome, is not an officially recognized psychological disorder, but has been the subject of a number of books and articles by psychologists and educators. Individuals experiencing this syndrome seem unable to internalize their accomplishments. Regardless of what level of success they may have achieved in their chosen field of work or study, or what external proof they may have of their competence, they remain convinced internally that they do not deserve the success they have achieved and are really frauds. Proofs of success are dismissed as luck, timing, or otherwise having deceived others into thinking they were more intelligent and competent than they believe themselves to be. This syndrome is thought to be particularly common among women, particularly women who are successful in careers typically associated with men, and among academics.

Imposter Phenomenon was first introduced in the late 70s, but it has gradually been growing in prominence. Now take a look at the first sentence and the last: "...is not an officially reocognized psychological disorder..." and "...particularly common...among academics." And that pretty much sums it up. I'll wait a few seconds while you catch your breath from laughing so hard.

Now regardless of what I say, all the PC liberal academics will blast me for being insensitive, unprofessional, etc. - whatever...I don't write for their benefit...I write to expose their fraud.

Now for the rest of us uneducated people - you know, the great unwashed... we experience pedestrian emotions like doubt or insecurity about our actions and accomplishments. But for the educated elite, they don't have these kinds of things...they have "syndromes." And of course, what baffles them so much is that they should even be experiencing this, because after all, they are the educated elite. So that is my first point: how academics do everything they can to distance themselves from being a regular human being.

But my second point is more pertinent: If an academic feels like a fraud...good, because they are frauds. Hey, sorry to break it to you, but the first step for an alcoholic is to admit they are an alcoholic. As Chomsky has articulated so well, there are two kinds of indoctrination - one for the masses (about 80%) where they need to be pre-occupied with trivial matters so they don't have the audacity of trying to actually participate in the democratic process, but the more crucial indoctrination is with the educated class (about 20%) who basically kiss power and privilege's ass even when they think they are being critical.

For all you academics out there, I recommend you watch David Lean's classic Bridge on the River Kwai - a fascinating metaphor...officer class (read: educated class) represented through the character of Nicholson insist that they do not do any physical labor - they lead, that is their job. They are obstinate about this, until they get their way. Then they want to show off how brilliant they are - leave a legacy for generations to come. All the while, the bridge (read: academia, power and privilege) really needs to be blown up. At least for Nicholson, he finally understood this...I doubt most academics could ever reach this level of understanding.

Roots of Empathy

2006-09-30T12:03:00.000-04:00

This is in response to the CBC's presentation on Roots of Empathy on Friday, September 29th's edition of The National.

If a program like "Roots of Empathy" is required in school - the underlying assumption is that children are not learning enough empathy. And if this is the case, The National should expose or postulate what some of those reasons might be. In the presentation, these were simply glossed upon (so much for investigative reporting...) as vague child cruelty - bullying on the school yard, a sense of alienation/isolation, etc. - in essence, nothing concrete put forward.

Well, as a parent of three young children, as well as a High School teacher with the Toronto District School Board, I would like to put something forward (which can also serve as a story idea for The National).

Our system of mass schooling as an institution is a system dedicated to social control and the manufacture of consent. In spite of the best intentions of many teachers, admin, and policy-makers, the institution works against empathy in the following ways:
1. Families are pressured to hand over their children to Early Childhood Educators and Daycare providers at extremely early ages. Instead of creating national and provincial policies that keep families together for longer, we are more concerned with removing the child from the home and giving them to credited "specialists." It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the alienation and isolation effect this has on young children.

2. Once children enter the mass schooling system - usually by age 4 - this alienation and isolation continues but now the institution starts to impose itself with regards to power struggles. We often talk about child bullying - or the "cruelty of children" - but this "cruelty" is merely learned from the institution of school itself. What is school, but a pressure cooker to compete and succeed, where even primary students are evaluated and given marks on their efforts? (EQAO starts at what, Grade 3?) Where standing in line for "safety" reasons, obeying teacher orders and instructions are more valuable than independent choices? Where responsibility over their educational lives (and arguably the right to self-determination) is held by the authoritarians: teachers, administrators, and policy-makers? Very quickly children learn what the rewards and punishments are for conforming or not. Very quickly children pick up on the relationships of power between themselves and the adults as well as the hierarchical relationship amongst the adults themselves (teachers-admin-support staff). But then we are surprised when children play out these power positions amongst themselves - as if this is simply the result of "the cruelty of children."

So now, after we have pretty much ripped young children from the hearth of family, given them a sense of isolation and alienation, exposed them to the effects of power and marginalization and they begin to re-enact those same jockeying for power in the realm where they have some control (the playground, cyberspace, etc.), we are shocked that they lack empathy. So let's create a program that puts a band-aid solution on this gross social scar.

In spite of the benefits of Roots of Empathy - which could be only short-term anyway: is there any evaluation/assessment made during the program? Are students tested on empathy? If so, a sure-fire way of making sure they equate empathy with the oppression of the classroom...
Rather than a program like "Roots of Empathy" we need to criticize and re-think the very notion of the institution of school.

The Beach School is an independent school in the East end of Toronto now in its fourth year. It is a small community of just under 20 Staff and Students based on the following principles:

1. Democratic Governance - every member whether four years old, or fifty years old, has the same power in the running of the school; free to put forward motions; and the determination of school rules. It is based on the premise that children learn democratic participation by being given the power and responsibility within the school community - more importantly, this power is a "right" of their communal membership.

2. Self-initiated Learning - where students are free to pursue their own interests and are not given a value judgment on those choices.

3. Age-mixing - The school accepts students aged 4-19 and are free to engage with and learn from anyone.

4. Due Process - Students (and Staff) who transgress another’s rights are not arbitrarily punished by an authoritarian, but go through a system of due process by the community.

The Beach School is by no means a "utopia" - as democracy is difficult even amongst "educated" adults. Therefore to new initiates, it poses even more challenges. But at the heart of the school is a recognition of human rights and the right of self-determination that adults demand, and an ethics of care for social interaction and community building.

The "Roots of Empathy" is a very appropriate term. Rather than seeing children as inanimate widgets that need to go through the factory of schooling, we need to build schools that treat children with basic human rights, with basic human dignity...with love and empathy.

"Diversity" of Educators

2006-08-19T21:53:00.000-04:00

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.

Letter to Toronto Star Editor

2006-08-19T21:29:00.000-04:00

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.