You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Education’ tag.
The pendulum may be starting to swing back toward a more moderate incremental embrace of change within the school systems of North America. We, thankfully, are starting to move away from ‘tearing down the old ways’ to acknowledging that the old ways were put in place for a reason and perhaps a more nuanced pace of change would benefit everyone in the school system.
“For decades, there was a general push and pull in the education world between progressives and traditionalists. The math wars stretch back at least to debates over California’s state curriculum in the 1990s. The phonics versus whole language debate began in the 1950s, and traditionalists have many times declared that phonics won. John Dewey first theorized a progressive education built on rationalist grounds in the early twentieth century, building on Jean Jacques Rousseau before him. As with old truths rediscovered, these are old debates as well.
Most recently, school systems embraced deconstructionism under pressure from anti-racist activists during Covid, imploring them to tear down old structures of discipline, instruction, testing, and curriculum. Traditionalists retreated while progressives advanced. Alas, an education system that forwent the basic truths of human nature was bound to fail, and schools are relearning old lessons.
In their renunciation of admissions tests, universities stumbled on the wisdom of the thought experiment “Chesterton’s Fence.” The purchaser of a new property, the idea goes, shouldn’t tear down a fence simply because they are unaware of its use. If they do, they may find snow drifts blocking their windows or wolves among the sheep. It is a call to respect the wisdom in existing institutions, but also a plea for intellectual humility. We may not know what’s best, so it is wise to respect those who came before.
What we need instead is a rediscovery of fundamentals, an acknowledgment that the old ways work, and a realization that if we sweep away everything old and try to reimagine something better, we will have swept away everything of value.”
I recommend going to Law & Liberty and reading the entire essay, as it advocates a reasonable way forward for Education in North America.
It so very important to know how the activist Left uses words. Logan Lancing helps illuminate all that goes into the term “Culturally Relevant Teaching”.
“Ok,” I thought. “Let’s figure out what culturally relevant teaching is.” I was curious. I wanted to know what it was and how it was tied to “equity.” I wanted to know how I had never encountered the term in my early schooling, yet it was now ubiquitous on every district page I looked at. “It had to have come from somewhere,” I thought. Who created it?
I moseyed on over to Google Scholar for the first time in over a decade. I searched for “culturally relevant teaching,” and hit “enter.” I received over three million results in a tenth of a second. Whoa! The results overwhelmed me, so I set my eyes on the two most cited – Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy (over 12 thousand citations); and But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy (over 6 thousand citations).
Both articles were authored by Gloria-Ladson Billings in the mid-1990s. I started with Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, the most cited result. It was there that I first encountered the term “critical consciousness,” which Billings identifies as the central learning objective culturally relevant teaching. “Culturally relevant teaching must,” she wrote, “[lead to the] development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness.” I now know that critical consciousness is the cult belief that everything in society is designed to oppress you, and the only way to come to know “the truth” of the world is to become a Marxist committed to the “prophetic vision of social justice,” to quote Henry Giroux (writing about Paulo Freire’s critical theory of education.) But, at the time, all I knew was that I needed to know more. “Wait… what? The central goal of education is the development of a *political* consciousness,” I thought. “What the hell is going on here?” I was curious.
In But that’s just good teaching, I encountered Paulo Freire’s name for the first time. I learned that culturally relevant teaching is an “approach similar to that advocated by noted critical pedagogue Paulo Freire.” I also learned that “critical consciousness” was something Ladson-Billings wasn’t mincing words about. “Students,” she said, echoing her statement in Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, “must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order.”
“Excuse me?!” Culturally relevant teaching was all the rage in every school district I investigated. I now recognized Gloria’s name all over the source documents I found. Why on earth are all of the schools invested in a program that teaches kids to “challenge the status quo of the current social order?” Who is Paulo Freire? What are “inequities,” and why must students learn to “critique the cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that produce and maintain” them? How did all of this become “good teaching”?
When I was learning to become a teacher this stuff was just starting to be integrating into the teaching curriculum. What sticks out now is a workshop I attended during one of the many teaching conventions I attended. They suggested that instead of the teacher following the curriculum and laying out the school year to be taught, instead, the first step was to ‘brainstorm’ with the students to see what they were interested in and then plan backwards from the student responses. I actually tried with my class to do that. The project got as far as tabulating the results on the board.
It turns out that retrofitting the curriculum into the specific interests of the class was a colossal project and since I was (and still am not) made of time we would be following a more traditional path. Now having looked at the genesis of ‘student centred learning’ I can see what I was eventually going to be signing up for. The teaching of critical consciousness instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic… Not a good trade off if my intended goal was to prepare children for a successful path in the current society.
“Academic freedom is not a self-justifying good. It must be oriented to some end that merits the support of those who finance it. One end of liberal education is the advancement of knowledge, which requires diverse opinions and the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. But another is to preserve and transmit a social and cultural inheritance. This is true if the transmission encourages challenges to the tradition as well.
The mere expansion of knowledge understood as information without an accompanying sense of philosophical wisdom and moral limitation is unable to justify itself or prevent its own abuse. Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps before the Progressive virus—one of whose symptoms is hyper-rationalism—fully infected him, explained: “There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility.”
This quotation speaks to the problem that seems to be endemic today in so much of higher education – a lack of a philosophical ‘North Star’ that guides and orientates the academic scholarship at universities and colleges. The transmission of our culture’s bedrock values, Classical Liberalism, seems to have been mostly replaced by a cadre of activist academics that seek not to preserve and strengthen our society, but rather ruthlessly criticize and pull apart that values that make higher education possible in the first place.
A better balance must be struck.
Former teacher, Carolyn Burjoski, is taking legal action against the Waterloo Region District School Board after being censored in a public school board meeting because she raised concerns about the age-inappropriateness of library books for children.
Trouble started when she turned to a book called The Other Boy by M.G. Hennessey and a scene that depicts a meeting between Shane, a transgender boy (born a girl), and a doctor. He voices excitement about starting on testosterone and when the physician says it would mean he likely wouldn’t be able to have children, he says, “It’s cool.”
As Burjoski remarked that such books make it seem overly straightforward to take cross-sex hormones, Piatkowski interjected to warn she may be violating the code.
The teacher said the book was misleading “because it does not take into account how Shane might feel later in life about being infertile. This book makes very serious medical interventions seem like an easy cure for emotional and psychological distress.”
At that point, Piatkowski told her he was “ending the presentation.”
The human rights code bars discrimination based on gender identity and other grounds in the areas of housing, employment and providing services.
Article contentThe widely used “affirmation” approach to children who identify as transgender has raised some concerns in several countries, and not just among obvious critics. Two leading psychologists in the transgender medical community, one of them a trans woman, complained in a recent article about sloppy and dangerous assessment of young people presenting as trans, with overly hasty resort to hormones.
In a statement, Burjoski said was relieved by the ruling.
“It is a significant victory and vindication, not just for me, but for everyone who dares to voice their valid concerns publicly,” she said. ”I hope this decision sends a strong message to school boards that the weaponization of human rights codes against concerned citizens is an undemocratic abuse of the code.”
These principles seem to be formed on the objective material we all share. They are a step in the right direction.
Statement of Principles – The September Declaration
This document is intended to be a minimal set of principles that are commonly agreed to by all individuals and organizations participating in the Parents Rights Coalition of Canada.
While the interests of various participants may be broad, the coalition’s focus is on the rights and responsibilities of parents and legal guardians with respect to their children who are below the age of majority. We believe that parents and legal guardians have a responsibility to their children to be faithful stewards of their best interests, and “parental rights” are the basis for them to exercise this responsibility.
We regard “gender ideology” to be a set of highly controversial beliefs and values rooted in academic fields such as “queer theory”, “gender studies”, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism. The tenets of gender ideology are unscientific and antithetical to the beliefs and values of most Canadians. These include the ideas that children can be “born into the wrong body”, that there are more than two “genders”, that gender is “fluid”, that gender is a “social construct” unrelated to sex, that traditional values concerning sexual propriety are “oppressive”, and so forth. We reject all core tenets of “gender ideology”. These include the following:
We reject that “gender” is a set of socially constructed behaviours and is independent of sex.
Note: Our position is that stereotypical behavioural differences between men and women are simply the cultural manifestations of deeply rooted biological and neurological differences between the two sexes. These concepts are not independent of each other. Accordingly, we make no distinction between “gender” and “sex. We propose to eliminate the use of the word “gender” to avoid confusion.
We reject the assertion that there are more than two sexes, that “gender” is separate from sex, and related concepts such as “gender spectrum”, “non-binary genders”, “transgender”, etc. Note: Our position is that there are only two sexes defined as follows: Man/Male = Adult Human Male and Woman/Female = Adult Human Female.
Accordingly, we call for the removal of all references to “gender identity” and “gender expression” from all provincial and federal diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and wherever it may be present, from the official K-12 educational curriculum as well.
Principle 1: “No government has ever proven itself a capable parent.”
Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their own traditional cultural, religious, or secular moral codes. Publicly funded schools have no authority to overrule parents’ rights in this regard. This means that parents must give permission for their children to participate in any contentious political, social, or cultural subject matter at any time. The default position for this type of participation for students must be “opt-in”.
Principle 2: “No secrets, parental consent is mandatory.”
We demand that schools adopt and vigorously enforce a “no secrets from parents” policy. Gender social affirmation at school is a serious psychotherapeutic intervention. It must never be conducted without parental approval. The provincial Ministries of Education must enforce this policy within the school system.
Principle 3: “We demand protection for girls’ sports.”
Boys must not be permitted to compete in competitive sports intended for females where male-specific physical advantages (strength, muscle mass, fast-twitch muscle fiber, bone density, etc.) result in an unfair competitive advantage and increased safety risks for female participants at the grade school and high school level.
Principle 4: “Affirmation cannot be dictated under penalty of law.”
We acknowledge that a small minority choose to present themselves as the opposite sex in terms of stereotypical dress and deportment. In a free country, they have the option to do so. This does not obligate the rest of society to affirm their choice. One’s self-proclaimed identity is a continuous negotiation with broader society which all Canadians must be free to accept or reject as they choose. Forced affirmation, including compelled or coerced speech, must not be dictated in our public schools. We likewise reject any attempt to force our children to use preferred pronouns or names they (or their parents) do not agree to.
Principle 5: “Public schools must be ideologically neutral.”
We call for an embrace of freedom of thought, respect for diversity of opinion, and principles of religious tolerance in public education. Schools must not promote, nor denounce, any religion(s) or secular ideological belief systems. We call for the removal of ideological symbols and forced celebration of days dedicated to various ideological social causes. On the matter of flags, we ask that only national flags and provincial or territorial flags be flown in our public schools anywhere on the school property.
Principle 6: “Sex-based rights must be respected.”
We demand that both sexes be prohibited from accessing spaces designated for the privacy and protection of the opposite sex regardless of how they self-identify. This includes all Canadian K-12 schools bathrooms/showers/changerooms, children’s camps, and overnight school trip accommodations, etc. Furthermore, we demand that all public schools and other public facilities have sex-based washroom options: girl’s washrooms, and separate boy’s washrooms. Sex-neutral washrooms as the only option, are not acceptable.
Principle 7: “There is no such thing as a transgender child.”
Teaching the idea that children are ever born in the wrong body (i.e.: one not matching their sex) is a blatant form of mental child abuse and a flagrant violation of the duty of fiduciary care schools have to all our children. We acknowledge that some children deal with gender dysphoria, and this must be addressed with compassion and the involvement of parents.
Principle 8: “Opt-out default for Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs.”
Some school boards and educators embed the core tenets of “gender ideology” into “anti bullying”, “DEI training”, and what is deemed “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” which differs from traditional sex education programs. This includes teaching “gender identity” and “gender expression” without presenting dissenting “gender critical” perspectives. As such, we demand that parental consent be required for all Comprehensive Sexuality Education and that it should be taught on an opt-in basis only where the opt-out option is the default choice.
Furthermore, no tenets of gender ideology should ever be shoehorned into classroom instruction, extracurricular activities, school posters/displays, or introduced by third-party trainers under any circumstance.
We demand that all school boards list all related training topics and provide electronic copies of all training materials pertaining to any “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” programs on their official websites so as to allow all these materials to be reviewed online by parents at any time.
Principle 9: “A moratorium on ‘gender-affirming medical care’ for minors.”
We call for an immediate moratorium on both “social gender transition” and so-called “gender-affirming medical care” for minors until such time as an impartial evidence-based review of gender medical practices (puberty blockers, hormones, surgery) similar to the UK “Cass Review” can be completed in Canada. Children do not have the brain development, maturity, wisdom, or life experience to fully appreciate the long-term consequences of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures designed to emulate the appearance of the opposite sex. Social gender transition is the first step on the path toward medical transition for children and must be treated as a form of child abuse. Accordingly, we also call for the removal of “gender expression” and “gender identity” from the definition of “conversion therapy” under the criminal code of Canada given the impact on children.
September 28, 2023 Revision
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…