SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
Where Is Quebec’s Totalitarianism Coming From?
Jun 8th, 2011 by Tunya Audain

Is this a true formula  –  socialism equals totalitarianism?

Quebec, is increasingly becoming more totalitarian.  Children are to go to government subsidized day-care to be "socialized", even as research shows poor results from these day-care programs.  Homeschooling parents are discouraged and steered into public schools.  Ethics and Religious Culture courses are mandatory in public and private schools.

Who are the motivators behind Quebec's statist mandates in childhood care and education?  I get little conversation about this in British Columbia, Canada. But, this is what I posted recently — both to clarify things in my own mind and to publish these questions to a broader audience.

 

Parents Cornered By The State  –  Any Options?

(by Tunya Audain 20110519 comment to blog, The Report Card, by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun Education Reporter, on story “Canada's top court considers mandatory religion course in Quebec schools” 20110518)

Increasingly the state imposes what it thinks best in the cause of “The Common Good”. Creeping statism !

(Statism:  the practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community)

How does this happen?  Do politicians meet in secret, and then proceed to legislate, some decree? No, generally such an action is in response to pressure or persuasion from some lobbying group  –  either self-interested or well-meaning.

Thus we see a group, in knee-jerk fashion, approach government for some comprehensive, universal program to correct a problem on behalf of some public good.  Very recently, in the name of reducing obesity and overindulgence in salt and sugar, two groups (Canadian Medical Association Journal and Active Healthy Kids Canada) suggested government remedies.

But the Globe and Mail did a blistering editorial on their starry-eyed suggestions.  Some quotes:

- People in a democracy should be free to make bad choices.

- The attitude seems to be that only the government can rescue children from bad habits.

- How the state is supposed to program the pounds off today’s children is not explained.

- Shaming and blaming, taxing and banning, will not work.

- The heavy hand of the state is not the answer to every ill.

(Globe and Mail, April 27, 2011, Toward a Utopia of Apples and Nuts)

I mention the above as introduction to my fears about the creeping totalitarianism in Quebec. I’m referring to the two related stories  –  a) The Supreme Court of Canada hearings on the legality of Quebec’s imposition of Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) curriculum on all schools, private and public, and b) a Quebec judge ordering a family to send their 3 and 5 year old children to state-funded daycare for “socialization” and which family had earlier had to send their homeschool children to public schools.

The Supreme Court started its hearings yesterday, with at least 8 interveners including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.  The testimonies and presentations will be extremely important to follow to determine just far we have come in losing our freedoms in Canada. "Can the state impose, without the possibility of an exemption, a program of study about religion and ethics on parents who view it as infringing on their religious beliefs and their freedom of conscience? Such is the stake in this case."

The case about the homeschooling family and the day care issue is being handled by a group called the Home School Legal Defense Association.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quebec-judge-orders-three-year-old-into-daycare-for-socialization video  “Forced into Daycare” http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/939198910001

In the matter of freedoms being squeezed, is our only recourse the law courts?

One big question for me is who are the lobbies behind these moves in Quebec, making it such a totalitarian province?  Is it just the Liberal government of Quebec or are there other lobbies such as public service unions who stand to gain if all children are made to attend state daycares and schools?  Or are other groups that oppose school choice and parental rights in education involved?

This week I heard yet another presentation of why we “need” universal Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs in BC when I attended the public COPE meeting on Public Education.  However, as persuasive as the speaker, Dr. Paul Kershaw, was, he admitted three times that in Canada there was a growing “nervousness” toward such programs.  Could it be that the heavily subsidized $7.00 a day program in Quebec is not producing the intended results?  See this May 12th report:  “Quebec’s massively-funded daycare program ‘very low’ quality”.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quebecs-massively-funded-daycare-program-very-low-quality-expert

A comment on this story of poor daycare results says:  “This interference is our generation’s residential school system.  Hopefully when these children will grow up they’ll be able to make a class action lawsuit in the same fashion.”

Are we only to wait until these children grow up when they might see that they have been cheated and they go to the courts for reparations?   They, who now are so seductively herded into universal state programs to be “socialized” and alienated from their families. How can the parents be so compliant? But what can resistant and cornered parents do? That’s what those two legal actions are about in Quebec.  Follow closely.

Why are families and parents in Canada treated so much like breeders for the state machine which “needs” children to process   —  one-size-fits-all, for the “The Common Good”?  I hope these Quebec cases provide a cautionary tale for the Rest of Canada (ROC).

What is needed, when governments fund, produce, and monopolize services is for the consumers/clients/captives to have enforceable rights and remedies as obligatory policy.  If these rights are not in place  –  when citizens can have some safeguards against state oppressiveness  –  the state should step aside, trust its people and offer free choice of programs it funds through equitable vouchers.

At this point, as we seem to be incrementally becoming more “socialized” I see no option but to look at the urgency for enforceable parent rights  –  for special education needs, general education and day care. A good starting point would be look at these parent rights as compiled from good practices of the past.  http://education-advisory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/parent_-rights_-and_-their_-children.pdf


 
Union/Government Sweetheart Deals Hurt
Mar 14th, 2011 by Tunya Audain

 

Sweetheart Government/Union Deals are Costly to the Poor Taxpayer

The new Premier of British Columbia (Canada) has just announced a new Cabinet and some restructuring of responsibilities in government.

Christy Clark, Premier, has reduced Cabinet from 23 to 18 Ministers.  Hopefully, that means LESS government, and LESS government spending.

We are in the midst of collective bargaining with the teachers’ union (BC Teachers’ Federation) and already the signals are threatening.  It’s a tight financial state of affairs in BC.  To the south of us we see some American states near bankruptcy and these provide cautionary tales for us to learn from.

The Wisconsin case is worth watching, for example, because it’s not just the decent salaries of public servants that are being examined, it’s their generous benefits and pensions that are under extreme scrutiny.  The teachers, for example, have non-salary items amounting to over 43% of payoffs and these have been gained incrementally through collective bargaining. 

The clash between the Governor and public service unions in Wisconsin is being seen as a faceoff between good guys and bad guys, depending on which side you are on.  However, increasingly, people are seeing BOTH sides as BAD GUYS.  See Mar 13, 2011, Cartoon by Michael Ramirez.   

In BC the sorry state of teacher bargaining has been the subject of considerable comment and hand-wringing for the last 40 years.  When a historian reports that the BCTF “functioned, more or less, as the government’s ‘unofficial opposition’ in all matters educational, regardless of which party was in power” that says something about the “cozy” relationship, hinging on “collusion” between the two so-called sparring partners.

Please read Thomas Fleming’s article: “Decline and Fall of the BC Ministry of Education 1972-1996”, especially the section, Teacher Power.  “Through the help of the Teachers Political Action Committee (TPAC) the NDP for the first time in BC swept into power in 1972 …The BCTF executive was by now firmly in the hands of militants, notably supporters of the ‘radical Marxist’ Jim MacFarlan, to use historian F.Henry Johnson’s description.” http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/454/611

To me, all this tussle is similar to show wrestling – not a real contest.  Whatever concessions are lost or gained in these periodic “collective bargaining” shows are concessions for the sake of peace and harmony and not in aid of the public interest, the students’ interest, nor the interest of the taxpayer.

This Ramirez cartoon applies equally to BC as it does to Wisconsin!

Public Services Unions and Politicians

BC Teacher Union and the Rest of Them
May 10th, 2010 by Tunya Audain

The BC College of Teachers (BCCT), in place for 2 decades and designed to oversee the public interest in education is seen, by many in BC, as effectively being undermined by the union representing government (public) school teachers, the BCTF (BC Teachers’ Federation).  The membership of the BCCT is comprised of educators in BC — government school teachers, independent school teachers and various administrators with teaching degrees.

The Councillors of the College, by law, are 8 appointed (by gov) and 12 elected from regional zones.  It’s the elected zonal Councillors, elected largely through the endorsement and help of the union, who are seen as manipulating decisions in line with union interests rather than the public interest.

Some of the Councillors feel so emasculated from any purposefulness in the public interest that they have now called on the Minister of Education to convene an independent investigation.  The Chair of the Council is taking the lead in this request.  And, there is now a gathering list of related organizations who support this inquiry – former Registrars, Chairs of previous Councils, a parents’ group (BCCPAC), trustees (BCSTA), Superintendents (BCSSA), Principal-Vice Principals (BCPVP) and the Federation of Independent Schools (FISA).  From all this alphabet soup of organizations the BCTF is alone, it seems, in opposing an investigation.  (The Association of BC Deans of Education – ABCDE – has not said a word, so far.)

These are my two essays I produced as an interested observer and a long time advocate for genuine parent involvement – a cause far too often short-circuited by teacher unions.  These essays appeared as comments on the blog, The Report Card, by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun Education Reporter http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/default.aspx

BCCT vs BCTF – Issues    ISSUE # 1 – Power vs Authority,  April 05/10

1.  Power.  If this BCCT vs BCTF dispute is a clash of Titans, there is definitely history here.  As far as raw, physical, continuous force goes, one just has to read this history article to see how the BCTF has grown as a parallel force to the government since 1972 in BC.  That is, steady, systematic, incremental growth for nearly 40 years.  Please see “teacher power” in this article: The Decline and Fall of the BC Ministry of Education http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/454/611

2.  Authority. Who has the authority in matters educational is not often questioned. Not much. Only some home educators would disagree as some claim it is a higher authority than man that governs their duty to educate their children.  Nevertheless, most people would agree that it is the elected government that has the ultimate authority.  That this authority has been emasculated and frustrated by the awesome extensive power of the teacher union is the subject of the history article referred to above and also a topic of conversation regarding the recent issues with the BCCT and the BCTF.

To put things into an international perspective the BCTF is not alone in its extraordinary influence and power in education.  Teacher unions internationally have gained power incrementally over sleepy jurisdictions.  There definitely has been witness and oversight failure.  By school boards, by senior governments and by domesticated parents and unaware public.

In a recent TV debate in the US we heard the former Education Secretary, Rod Paige, say:  “Teachers unions represent the most dominant political force in American education.  We’re not talking about little wimpy organizations. We’re talking about mammoth highly financed, highly organized, highly peopled organizations. And political dominance is not something they got unintentionally.  They intended to be politically dominant.”  http://intelligencesquaredus.org/wp-content/uploads/Teachers-Unions-031610.pdf

Questions arising:

a)  Does might make right?

b)  Is this a case of an Irresistible Force against an Immovable Object ?

c)  What are the political rewards or payoffs that the present government is enjoying by not intervening in this standoff of 22 years standing?

d) __________

BCTF vs BCCT – Issue #2:  Politics vs Public Interest, April 26, 2010

I attended two public meetings of the BC College of Teachers (Jan and April 2010) and was disturbed with the behavior of the 8 Councilors considered BCTF elected members.  I was troubled that they are role models to children in our public schools.

I was considerably relieved, however, to be told that they were not your average straight-arrow teacher but were select militants from BCTF ranks.  They were elected by college members from their regions and who were endorsed and assisted by various union means to election.  Some were fulltime union officials and not currently practicing teachers.

So, they are NOT everyday teachers but are obviously attached by apron strings to their union bosses.  While my respect remains for teachers per se, my experience at the meetings bore out the perception and reality of teacher unionists as political, manipulative, controlling, aggressive and wily. (With a few exceptions.)

1.  Dilatory Behavior:    Calculated delaying tactics were evident at both meetings.  The January mtg saw a massive campaign of  s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g  Roberts Rules of Order to the extreme. The April mtg was packed with presentations from union locals taking up considerable time.

2.  Note-Passing:    At the January mtg one of the appointed Councilors challenged the note-passing from members of the audience to elected Councilors.  I watched for this at the April mtg and was shocked to see a prominent union local president walk up to a seated elected Councilor, pass a note, whereupon the Councilor proceeded on an extensive line of prompted questioning.

3.  Mission Unclear:    A number of the presentations by the union locals demonstrated their belief that the College was there to support government public schools. The BCTF president-elect, Susan Lambert, who spoke extensively in a session over 1 hr long, also conveyed that impression. However, the reality is that the BCCT oversees ALL public education matters in BC – public (government), private, independent and other.  This is the public interest BCCT must adhere to.  Perhaps the next Convention BCCT sponsors should be on the topic Public Interest in BC Education.  It is clear to me that many in BC either sincerely do not understand the mission of a self-regulating college of teachers or wish to continue being the mischief-makers, the problem, rather than the solution.

Questions arising:

a)  Since both these meetings were dysfunctional and unproductive, with little business conducted, should the next public meeting have a Registered Parliamentarian conduct the proceedings with the power to declare adjournment if there is obvious obstruction?

b)  Should the Oath of Office be administered to all Councilors individually before each meeting?

c)  Since questions from the public never happened at either meeting due to ambush of the agenda, should this be an item priority at the early stages of the next public meeting?

d)  __________________________________

 

GERT #1: Know Thine Enemy
Nov 12th, 2009 by Tunya Audain

Genuine Education Reform Today  (GERT)

Dedicated to ADVANCING genuine education reform

Exposing OBSTACLES to genuine education reform

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa