Who Should Rule Education — The Government or Teacher Union?

This question arises because in British Columbia, Canada, the BC Teachers' Union has successfully, over a number of years, undermined the value of standardized testing — the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA).

The national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, had its columnist, Gary Mason, weigh in on the matter with his position: "BC, not the union, should run education"

Comments now number over 130 and the debate continues to rage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/bc-not-its-teachers-union-should-run-education/article1884019/

These are four of my comments to the G&M online discussion:

1. Who is calling the shots in BC education?

Since 1972, when the NDP swept into government in BC, the teachers’ union has ruled the roost in matters education. They gained a foothold into the corridors of power, learned the in’s and out’s of influence, and have never relinquished their beachhead since.

Gary Mason now asks the crucial question: BC or BCTF to rule education? Looks like a showdown at the Victoria corral is imminent regardless of who the premier will be.

We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world if we continue to follow the BCTF script.

What bothers me the most is how the BCTF gets others to do their dirty work for them. Gary Mason mentions how parents have now been recruited to withdraw their children from the tests.

Yes, it took two years, but that script has now borne fruit. It was their October 2008 newsmagazine that published the call: “We need a parent boycott”. The article considers the reasons why teacher insubordination or a boycott would not work:

- Divisive of teachers – pits activists against dissidents

- Political suicide – the public doesn’t really understand

- Legal suicide – teacher boycott would be ruled an illegal strike

Therefore, VOILA, the paper goes on, “we must strengthen and refine our existing efforts to undermine the tests and support a powerful parent boycott.” http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=16804

Of course, on top of past successes with parents, more “tweaking” must go on. “Our job is to empower them in that task” that is, get MORE parents than ever to withdraw.

As a grandparent I deeply resent the way teacher unions have contemptuously treated parents in the past, and I’m ever more distressed how current parents are being co-opted and exploited to fulfill the BCTF agenda.

I urge Gary Mason to do a follow-up story on the many ways in which the BCTF has been recruiting parents – the YouTubes, the parent conferences, the advocacy organizations they fund and expedite, the capture of school boards, the research papers, etc. It would blow your mind!

It’s wrong, and very unfair to parents, to students, and society as a whole.

2.  Parent and Student Choice Desired

("Give the unions a choice – get with the program – or everything goes on a voucher system." [bigred85] This was a response by a reader.  I agreed as below:)

I agree. We need a voucher or tuition tax credit program so that people can choose their preferences in education styles. If people choose progressive schools with progressive teachers that don't like testing they would still have to recognize that taxpayer dollars have to be accounted for. There would still be government monitoring of the effectiveness of dollars spent — to see if the job expected was being done.

3.  Parents and Community Did Not Forfeit, They Were Usurped

(Another reader felt it was the parents and community who should run education, but observes that "that basic right" has been forfeited a long time ago. [rbairos]  My reply below)

Yes, parents and community and media may have been sleeping, dozing, or turning a blind eye while the teacher unions gained more and more power and benefits.

But, because the BCTF has such tremendous funds at their disposal — far superior to any other lobby group in BC — they can mount very sophisticated propaganda and promotional campaigns. They readily promote coalitions and quickly sponsor advocacy groups at the drop of a hat.

The very concept of a lay public school board has been substantially compromised by educators in BC. Because we have no conflict of interest rules governing, we see many teachers, ex-teacher union officials, public service union officials, etc. being elected as trustees. We’ve even seen candidates offered teacher union electoral support if they signed pledges to support teacher union agendas.

How does this picture sit with you? Teachers on both sides of the bargaining table?

The teacher union, furthermore, is quick to issue C&D (Cease and Desist) letters to those who criticize a bit strongly and it doesn’t hesitate to use SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) processes to have a court decide if a person has defamed or just spoken too pointedly.

This is not unique to BC. Teacher unions internationally are a factor in cowing people into acquiescence and compliance with their projects – undermining of standardized testing being just one such campaign.

In BC they are so successful because they have been politically, militantly active since early 70s.

4. The Debate Rages

I have consolidated my comments on this debate and placed them in a logical order on my blog — Genuine Education Reform Today.

http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2011/01/28/who-should-rule-education-the-government-or-teacher-union/

Who Should Rule Education — The Government or Teacher Union?

Who is calling the shots in BC education?

Parent and Student Choice Desired

Parents and Community Did Not Forfeit, They Were Usurped

I’m not doing this to bolster my views, but as background for what comes next.

I want to highlight the importance of what our columnist, Gary Mason, has been able to achieve. His article has flushed out a critical player not yet heard from.

While the debate is urgent it has remained at a rather local level, the teacher unions, the ministry of education, the parents, etc. What has remained hidden till now are the Masters of the Game, the university people behind the scenes. And, there are many – professors, deans, departments, programs, foundations, etc.

Please read today’s letter to the editor on this issue from Heather Lotherington, Professor, Multilingual Education, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/jan-28-letters-to-the-editor/article1885541/

The letter is titled “Testing, testing”, written in educational jargon and conceptual convolutions that I find difficult to follow. I do get some of the sarcasm lobbed at “aging politicians who support standardized tests.” In other words, she is for “contemporary literacies” which invalidate such old fashioned tests as those that check for the 3Rs.

Lotherington and the whole linguistic industry seem to have an agenda which needs huge public attention. Why is there such a resistance to teach reading anyway? How will people decipher history? Twitter won’t do it?

The progressives who talk like this are responsible for dumbing-down and it’s very costly, to our children, our future, and to our wallets.

Has anyone every calculated how much taxpayer money goes to these high falutin, pompous and pretentious studies going on in our universities? And the cost to our civil society?

Wiping The Slate Clean Won’t Solve School Testing Wars

Because of the teacher union opposition to annual standardized testing many parents have been persuaded to withhold their children from the Foundation Skills Assessments (FSAs) in British Columbia.  The Principals Association has now joined in to request dropping the annual FSA as it has been so undermined it “is no longer able to do what it was designed to do” – that is, rendered meaningless.

Some people aim to placate or conciliate and say we must move on, but I and others have said this would be giving in to bully behavior.  The Vancouver school board chairperson wants out of the dispute.  Below is my answer to those who seek to “move on”.

To Move On or Zero-Out is an Utter Cop-Out 

(by Tunya Audain 20110123, comment to blog Report Card by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun Education Reporter on story “Jameel Aziz gets mixed reviews on anti-FSA statement 20110121 http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2011/01/21/jameel-aziz-gets-mixed-reviews-on-anti-fsa-statement.aspx)

Being the grandmother of four grandchildren in the BC education system I believe I have the credentials to be involved in this discussion.  I have said before that those who aim to be mediators or enablers in this FSA fight are just emboldening those who oppose standardized testing. We mustn’t submit to authoritarianism and to those with vested interests trumping the public interest.

Those who decry rhetoric are often the best exponents of rhetoric!  Why does Susan Lambert, president of BCTF, say the tests are “superficial”.  The 3R’s are never superficial to me!

We now have the chairperson of the Vancouver School Board saying VSB “wants out of the dispute.”  

I kept hearing all day Saturday on News 1130 that Patti Bacchus saw the fight as being between the Ministry, the teacher union and the principals. I heard this broadcast repeated over and over on my background radio.  Bacchus kept repeating, “It’s time to move on.”

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.  She was involved in the deed from a long way back.

See the News 1130 write-up here:  http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/173048–vancouver-school-board-wants-out-of-fsa-debate    What you won’t get is the vocal interview.

I will maintain, that if it wasn’t for the VSB efforts of over the past few years, we would not be in the position we are in now.  It was largely because of the FSA opponents within the VSB structure that the campaign to undermine the tests has been so successful. Vancouver’s success in achieving withdrawals is substantial. I don’t have the numbers, but it has been a model and inspiration for other opponents. Vancouver achieved a lot in getting that ball rolling.

I was at that pivotal meeting on Jan 7th, 2009 where the groundwork was laid and the push turned into shove. See the details here on Janet’s blog:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2009/01/08/a-report-from-the-vancouver-fsa-meeting.aspx?CommentPosted=true

The meeting included Committee I and III members (Management Coordinating and Education & Student Services) totaling about 20 people around a table, chaired by Mike Lombardi, and 50 people in the audience.  Read the blog post referred to above, and all the comments.  The details are there.  

My comments said I felt the whole thing was pre-planned. A fait accompli.  The public meeting was staged for show.

From that meeting, my understanding was that a recommendation was to be prepared by a drafting committee proposing that DPAC produce a letter to parents to include the three Ministry options for withdrawal and that VSB would allow this to be distributed.  That this was a recommendation that would go before the next full regular board meeting, January 19th.

Imagine my consternation when I went to the January 19th board meeting to find the DPAC letter had already been produced (it was available for pickup with other papers) and that it had already been sent out to some schools.

In question period I asked why the approval of this letter did not come before the board as a whole and Patti Bacchus replied, with Roberts Rules of Order in her hand, and said that the Rules covered that.  I was dumbfounded.  

I still think this was a deceitful move, not going before the regular board for debate and discussion.

Furthermore, I think it was really a slick move by the committee members to have the DPAC be the ones to be seen publically assisting the parents with decision-making on this critical issue.  I see a lot of VSB people complicit in this initiative.  VESTA was a big player and had many members at that Jan 7 meeting as committee members.  (I think it’s a bargaining victory in Vancouver to have union members on all VSB committees.)

Certainly the BCTF article detailing why a “Parent Boycott” was required would have been read beforehand by committee members. “So, if a teacher boycott isn’t the answer, what is?

Simply put, we must strengthen and refine our existing efforts to undermine the tests and support a powerful parent boycott.”

http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=16804

Parents being used and manipulated again by the teacher union for their causes!

That was only two years ago. Much has been accomplished since in undermining FSAs and VSB should be credited for much of this present state of affairs. That meeting was an education for me.  I was rather naïve before, but VSB politicking at those meetings opened my eyes.

So please, people, don’t say, “Let’s forget all that.  Let’s move on.”  There’s some pretty atrocious politics involved. I think we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg in how our society values are being undermined by some very dedicated vested interests.

Every year the teacher union in British Columbia (Canada) mounts a militant protest against standardized testing in public schools.  This year the Principals/Vice-Principals Association has added their support.  Below is the essay I wrote showing that underlying the FSA (Foundation Skills Assessment) protest is the political ambition of the left-wing union to dominate education matters in BC as well as politics generally.  I show a history going back 40 years of the BCTF maneuvering itself into dominance.  

Toxic Political “School Wars” Harm Parents and Children

(by Tunya Audain published Jan 20, 2011 in the blog The Report Card of the Vancouver Sun)

For those people who see themselves as mediators or healers or therapists of some kind or other in this never-ending “School Wars” scenario — I wish they would see the harm they are causing. It’s like saying to a bully, “It’s OK, just don’t do it again.”  “No problem, let’s just get on with our lives.”

The bully won’t stop; in fact will be emboldened.  The victims will continue to suffer.

We really should not be using the idiom of an elephant in the room.  This is too mild! I think the image of the 900 pound gorilla is more fitting.  It seems to fit the BCTF, don’t you think?

Large and powerful that lives by its own set of rules.  A dominant player, an overbearing entity, an unbeatable presence always to be reckoned with whose experience, influence and skill threatens to defeat competitors with little effort.  

Add on top of that a political ideology, a left-wing Marxist agenda, tied to international solidarity movements with other teacher unions in the world, and you have an entity both powerful and committed to persevere in its political victories. Some say the BCTF should be considered a political party.

I’ve noted before that BC generally splits three ways politically: 25% committed left-wing socialist, 25% committed conservative/traditional and 50% uncommitted middle.

Parents and students no doubt split that way too.  Why then should parents and students be badgered by the BCTF and to be under their sway?  This is when the desire for real choices such as vouchers to choose non-BCTF schools comes to the fore.

BC has seen over 40 years of this unrelenting political agenda foisted on them.

The history is there. In BC this goes back to 1972 when we gained our first socialist government (NDP) and the teacher union established a foothold in the Ministry of Education and provincial decision-making in general.  This beachhead has not been relinquished since.

In 1975 the outgoing BCTF President, Jim MacFarlan, said to the Annual General Meeting about his presidency:

“During those four years some of my political opponents both within and without the Federation have called me a militant, a socialist, a Marxist, a radical. Well, although those terms were used by frightened people, I have never attempted to deny those allegations because they are all true.”  (March 27, 1975)

Some of those old teacher unionists from those days are still active, stirring the pot, never forgetting their political agendas.  They have gained positions as trustees on school boards, a number have high positions on staff at BCTF headquarters, while others keep trying to organize parents.

University professors and Deans of Education also get into using the BCTF as the vanguard in pushing for left-wing agendas through the public education system.  Their code word is “neoliberalism” as in “We need to stop neoliberalism in education.”

The best description of neoliberalism comes from a former Deputy Minister of Education, Dr. Charles Ungerleider (1998-2001), now a sociology professor at UBC.  In a paper condemning the predominant slant of our media towards conservative/traditional values, he says

“•…Canadian media express predominantly neo-liberal values.  

 • The economic interests of individuals should not be fettered by considerations of social equity.  

 • Choice, as a manifestation of freedom, is a virtue in its own right and the means by which individuals are able to express approval or disapproval in the market.  

 • People are better served through private entrepreneurialism than by public regulation or provision of services.  

 • Productive efficiency is the primary – perhaps singular – criterion by which any public policy should be judged.” 

He goes on to say: “This list is not surprising. A substantial number of Canadians subscribe to neo-

liberal values”  and, he continues to explain how provincial governments and media cater to this value set.  They “extol the virtues of individualism, choice, competition, productive efficiency, and private enterprise.”   

See his essay: Government, Neo-liberal Media, and Education in Canada

http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-1/CJE29-1-ungerleider.pdf

If the parents of my grandchildren subscribe to those values: individualism, choice, competition, productive efficiency, and private enterprise, why should my grandchildren have neoMarxist values imposed on them?.

In the current FSA fight another professor has gotten into the fray, Donald Gutstein, communications, SFU.  The Nanaimo Teachers union is using his paper on debunking the neoliberal agenda in their moves to oppose the FSAs.  In his 28 page paper “Reframing Public Education” http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Issues/FSA/Gutstein-ReframingPublicEducation.pdf Gutstein  references the work of a well-know Marxist, David Harvey who has been credited with helping to bring back social class and Marxist methods as serious methodological tools in the criticism of global capitalism. 

Nanaimo story is here http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=e7b01d7a-f55a-4e84-948d-680e772bfd33 

What I’m trying to show is that the BCTF is definitely heavily promoting its Marxist agenda and using neoMarxist literature to do so.  We should not be pussyfooting around and say BCTF is doing its job, helping teachers.  No, they’re also re recruiting people into their agendas and people should be able to say “No”.  

Obviously the Principal/ VP association has now been swayed to join the BCTF in its agenda.  And Stepan Vdovine a young progressive trustee is proud to point to his article where the ex-Dean of Education at SFU, Paul Shaker, is also on board. http://www.vdovine.ca/2010/12/does-education-advocacy-weaken-public-support-for-the-system/

So parents, be aware of the hidden agendas, and the hidden curriculum here in BC politics and education.  And don’t accept those words from people who say, “Let’s just get on with it”.  We need to know when to say “No” and when to retreat to better choices.