Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Education

Rethinking Public Education

Published

1 month ago

12 minute read

From The Audit

Holding public officials and institutions accountable using data-driven investigative journalism

What should public education accomplish?

On any given school day some six million Canadians between the ages of 5-18 are “locked up” – often against their will – inside K-12 schools. Approximately 2.5 percent of Canada’s gross domestic product is spent on public education. And, using Ontario as an example, that’ll cost more than $30 billion annually, or around 16 percent of the province’s budget.

Society invests heavily in education, and yet no one seems completely satisfied with the results. When was the last time you met an adult of any political stripe who didn’t have an opinion about what’s wrong with schools these days?

This piece was inspired by a comment to my recent Ranking Public Education Efficiency By Province post. That’s where I presented evidence suggesting increased funding would probably not solve the deep, systemic problems casting gloomy shadows up and down the halls of our ministries of education.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

So is there a better way to do public education? I honestly don’t know. But I do know that it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out if we don’t go back to the very beginning as ask some basic questions. And I also know that I haven’t seen most of these particular questions asked anywhere else:

What should public education accomplish?

How do you plan a trip if you don’t know where you want to go?

We can probably agree that all children should learn the skills they’ll need to live productive and successful lives as adults. And there’s not a lot of controversy in saying that those skills should include competence in reading, writing, and basic mathematics.

We can probably also agree that students should graduate with a healthy civic identity which would include comfort with, and loyalty to our cultural and legal heritage. However, things will get prickly when we try to define exactly what we mean by “identity” and “cultural”. Not to mention “heritage”. How do we decide whose definitions win?

Some will argue that schools should teach only skills and leave values out of the curriculum altogether. In other words, education should be culturally neutral. The biggest problem with that is that teachers aren’t neutral. Having taught high school for 20 years myself, I can tell you that, by design or by accident, a teacher enters the classroom as a complete and unsegmented person. And even the drowsiest, most distracted student senses it.

Some go a step further and advocate for teaching children the “critical thinking skills” they’ll need to make their own value judgments. Well that’s fine if you’re providing only the relevant epistemological, semantic, cognitive, and heuristic tools. But if your “critical thinking” curriculum includes even one values-based answer (see above for “unsegmented teachers”) then, by definition, you’re a propagandist.

What, exactly, is wrong with what we’ve already got?

There’s a lot here about which I simply don’t have enough clarity:

  • I’ve read that grade inflation is allowing students to graduate without having mastered the content to which their transcripts attest. But I haven’t been able to find hard data to assess the claims.
  • I’ve heard that employers are unsatisfied with the skills and work ethic of the young graduates applying for jobs. But how many employers? And how unsatisfied are they?
  • As a (former?) IT system administrator, I’m well aware that large-scale technology adoptions in education environments were, historically, often the product of vendor hype, unreasonable expectations, and precious little serious research. And they often led to outrageous unintended consequences. But I’m no longer sufficiently plugged in to that world to have a sense of whether, on aggregate, technology is helping or harming children (or simply draining budgets).
  • I’ve heard that at least some school boards appear to be dominated by extreme politically-driven ideologies. But how many boards are impacted? And how often do those ideologies find their way into classrooms?
  • I’ve seen evidence that Ministry-level policy research is relying on poor and debunked scholarship. But has it made a difference with anyone involved with actual classroom teaching? (And how do you measure “debunked”?)

Should control over education policy be centralized?

Curriculum policy in Canada is generally set at the provincial ministry level and politely ignored everywhere else. I’ve already written about that in these pages. But, as discussed earlier, K-12 policy development costs us hundreds of millions of dollars each year across the country.

I’m not sure it’s even possible to impose detailed policy and curriculum guidelines. As a wise man once told me, you can tell them exactly what you want them to say but, with an arched eyebrow or a subtle voice inflection, experienced teachers communicate whatever message they want.

Now, considering how the system is currently funded, it makes perfect sense that elected officials at the provincial level should determine education policy. What makes somewhat less sense is that the policy researchers they hire appear to invest a great deal of energy resisting government “interference” and also refuse to share their research with the public who paid for it.

But, in theory at least, is the current system ideal?

Let me take a step back. What exactly is an education expert whose opinions qualify as authoritative? The issue is complicated by the many popular pedagogical theories that have come and (in some cases) gone over the decades. Those include constructivism, behaviorism, social learning theory, cognitive load theory, multiple intelligences theory, experiential learning theory, connectivism, situated learning theory, Bloom’s taxonomy, and humanistic education.

However I don’t believe that any single one of those – or even a combination – has ever achieved any kind of lasting consensus as they they cycle in and out of popularity. Nor can it be claimed that the policies set by whoever the credentialed experts happen to be have led to consistently satisfying results.

That is certainly not to suggest that the experts’ guidance hasn’t delivered successes over the years, or that they don’t bring value to the table. But, after more than a century’s worth of experiments with centralized educational control, it might be time to try something else.

Refer a friend

Are all teenagers best served by mandatory enrollment?

When we acknowledge that no two children have identical needs and potential, it means that we have to be ready to treat them differently. And that’ll involve more than sending some kids to room 310 for their 10:30 class and others to room 315 across the hall. Isn’t it reasonable to wonder whether some teenagers can learn more and transition faster to responsible adult life outside educational frameworks?

Perhaps some truancy and child labour laws need updating.

Do vested interests stand in the way of positive change?

I honestly don’t know enough to have solid opinions on these questions, but they must be asked:

  • Are teachers colleges politicized?
  • Do the incentives driving powerful teachers unions conflict with students’ needs?
  • Are sharply competing visions within ministries of education paralyzing the system (and wasting resources)?
  • Should parent-advocates be allowed to interfere with educational professionals doing their work?
  • Can every ministry job category still justify its costs – in both budget and institutional friction?

The inexorable inertia of incumbency is also a key player in this story.

What could replace the current model?

Some of the conflicts describe above come down to opposing worldviews. Are you a top-down governance type in whose eyes only “the authorities” have the knowledge and power to manage the lives of their subjects? Or do you see government as the servant of the people, existing only to fill in for the individual when faced with tasks requiring collective action? The worldview checkbox you tick will probably influence the kinds of alternatives you find yourself visualizing.

However, preconceptions shouldn’t be our only consideration. If there’s anything practical you could take away from this post, it’s that we need more serious research. Sure, I know there are good people out there thinking deeply about education policy. I’m far from the first person asking some of those questions.

But I haven’t yet come across any holistic discussion that starts from first principles and, in those terms, seeks to understand exactly what we’ve got and what we’re missing. And it’s only with that knowledge could we hope to build something genuinely new.

Happy 2024-2025 school year!

David Clinton

Share

For a free subscription to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 8 hours ago

Can We Finally Talk About United Nations Funding?

National / 9 hours ago

How Rick Perkins and Larry Brock Revealed a $330 Million Cover-Up While Liberal MPs Run Damage Control

Daily Caller / 14 hours ago

New York City Reportedly Seeking 14,000 Hotel Rooms For Migrants, To Spend Over $2 Billion As Crisis Rages On

Education

Fired Alberta Professor Largely Vindicated

Published on October 9, 2024

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Hymie Rubenstein

“There’s no reason why I shouldn’t be reinstated”

An arbitrator has ruled that Calgary’s Mount Royal University (MRU) acted in a “disproportionate” manner in late 2021 in its firing of Frances Widdowson, a tenured political scientist with a specialty in Indigenous issues.

Dr. Widdowson, an outspoken critic of the politically charged but theoretically simplistic notions of the academic culture wars at MRU was dismissed just before Christmas 2021 during what arbitrator D.P. Jones called a “Twitter War” between her and a few activist colleagues opposed to her views.

The hearing took 30 days, over ten months, as 25 witnesses gave evidence. Its main findings were on the appropriateness and fairness of the procedures used to dismiss her, not on the reasons given for her dismissal.

The latter concerned September 2020 comments from Widdowson that far from constituting genocide, aboriginal children gained educational benefits by attending Canada’s Indian Residential Schools, an outrageously scandalous opinion among some at MRU.

Her position on Indigenous issues would certainly have been considered heretical at MRU where extreme pro-indigenous, anti-colonial, anti-white privilege perspectives have long ruled.

Following her dismissal, Widdowson filed ten grievances, eight on procedural grounds and two on substantive ones. In his nearly 300-page decision, Jones threw out the grievances involving the improper procedures employed by the university in its dealings with Widdowson.

On discipline, Jones found that while Widdowson’s behaviour was “just cause” for discipline, her firing was “disproportionate” to that behaviour.

On one of Widdowson’s substantive grievances, Jones ruled that her two-week suspension was disproportionate, ruling that a letter of reprimand be substituted for the suspension.

When it came to Widdowson’s firing, Jones wrote that there was just cause for discipline based on Widdowson’s conduct, but that dismissal was an inappropriate penalty.

However, Jones said that Widdowson’s continued employment with the university would not be viable for several reasons, including Widdowson’s ongoing hostility toward the university and colleagues, witness testimony that stated her return to the university would be disruptive, and her “persistence” throughout the arbitration hearing that several tweets investigated did not constitute harassment.

Instead, the arbitrator suggested, “In my judgment, this is an appropriate case in which to substitute a monetary payment rather than reinstatement with lesser penalties.”

In an interview with CBC News on Friday, October 4, Widdowson said she’s pleased with the arbitrator’s ruling that she was wrongfully terminated but that she continues to be upset about how the arbitration approached the issue of harassment.

“People continue to think that I engaged in harassment, which I did not. I’ve done extensive analysis of the different findings which were put forward by the different investigators,” she said.

“There were four different investigators hired by MRU, and these investigators all had different, contradictory findings. What we need from the decision is for there to be a neutral person who makes findings of facts about this.”

“There’s no reason why I shouldn’t be reinstated,” she said during a phone interview with a national media outlet.

“The people who don’t want me to return to MRU, I don’t work with those people,” she replied.

She doesn’t “work with those people” because she shares nothing with them intellectually.

The irony is that Widdowson is an old-school leftist, a classical Marxist whose views on inequality focus on inter-class conflict having little to do with racial, ethnic, sexual, or gender identity, the preoccupation of contemporary identity politics, also known as wokeism.

Traditional Marxists and disciples of wokeism are both on the left, often the hard left. But they support incompatible paradigms about the causes and consequences of social and economic inequality, hence their mutual loathing.

Widdowson said she is appealing the decision to regain her tenured faculty position. It seems likely, however, that she’ll end up accepting a huge payout instead.

In his ruling, Jones found that although Widdowson has “controversial views on a number of topics … there has never been a complaint about the quality or ethics of her scholarship; she has never received performance management counselling for either her teaching or scholarship; and the University has supported and recognized her scholarly activities.”

Mount Royal officials said, “While the formal process continues, we will have no further comment.”

Hymie Rubenstein is editor of REAL Indigenous Report, a retired professor of anthropology, and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

DEI

CA school taught 5th graders gender identity, had them teach it to kindergartners

Published on October 3, 2024

By

From The Center Square

By 

Plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

A California school district allegedly had a teacher teach a lesson and read a gender identity book to fifth graders, then have those fifth graders watch a video version of the book with their kindergarten mentees and teach them the lesson they just learned.

Outraged Encinitas parents are now suing the school district and demanding a notification and opt-out program for all objectionable content; currently, content notifications and opt-outs are only available for the health unit.

The fifth grade students’ parents had first asked to review a health unit with lessons on “puberty, health reproduction, media influences on health habits and body image, hygiene, boundaries and bullying and diseases and their transmission, including information about HIV/AIDS.”

After finding the unit’s  “instruction on gender identity and transgenderism” was “affront to their religious beliefs,” the parents tried to opt out of just the gender section, but were told they would have to opt out of the entire unit, which they did.

But this opt out did not cover the school’s buddy program that pairs older students with the same younger students every week for one class.

The lawsuit says “with the buddy relationships in place and well established, [school district staff] planned a unique event for May 1, 2024. During this “buddy” program, the District would use fifth graders to help kindergarteners learn about gender identity.”

The school district used My Shadow is Pink, a picture book for young children in which a boy “wonders about his gender and how he believes it differentiates from his father’s gender” and says he “loves wearing dresses and dancing around.” The boy wears a dress to school, making the father “anxious and stressed” until he too wears a dress after his son has a difficult day. The father then tells his child, “pick up that dress! Your shadow is pink. I see now it’s true. It’s not just a shadow, it’s your inner-most you.”

Before the buddy session, one staff member said to another, “We might just inspire some sweet things to fly toward their shadow tomorrow,” suggesting the lesson had a desired outcome, according to the lawsuit.

At the start of the session one teacher allegedly read the book to the fifth grade class, which students found unusual because “It was rare for [him] to read any book to them, and he had never read a book to them for the ‘buddy’ program.”

Immediately after, the fifth graders each sat next to their kindergarten mentees, and shown a read-along video version of the book, leading one 5th grade plaintiff to allegedly say “[he] wanted to cover his buddy’s eyes and ears to protect him.”

Next, 5th graders were allegedly told to have their buddies choose a color representing their buddies’ gender, and draw their buddies’ outlines in chalk in that color to communicate “gender was determined by an internal feeling.”

Both plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

“The blatant promotion of gender identity in the My Shadow is Pink book is self-evident and obvious,” says the lawsuit. “The book is marketed as “a rhyming story that touches on the subjects of gender identity, equality, and diversity.”

A petition to require parental notification for controversial curriculum items at Encinitas Union School District, but the school did not respond to the petition or its concerns, aside from sending a template letter describing the district’s opt-out policy.

The lawsuit is claiming the students’ First Amendment  rights were violated by compelling them to speak messages to kindergarteners that violate their religious beliefs and consciences, and that the school districts’ policy of allowing opt-outs only in some parts of schooling but not in others is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Among other demands, the plaintiffs seek opt out and parental notification policies for “curriculum, activities, or any other instruction related to gender identity or other LGBTQ topics.”

“You have the absolute right to opt your child out of any program out there,” said Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, to The Center Square. Last month, the CPC issued an “opt-out toolkit” explaining to parents how they can protect and expand opt-out policies.

“These parents have the right to not have their children subjected to a radical ideology,” continued Christensen. “We’re talking about elementary school kids. What’s wrong with these teachers, and these schools?”

Continue Reading

Trending

X