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

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!

NeoMarxism in Public Schools

How much of the curriculum in public schools is driven by ideological agendas? I’m wondering if progressive education is now becoming more Marxist.  More bold and confident.  

For a time we had, at our university (Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC), a two-year Masters program in teacher unionism in the works.  Can you imagine what a professional, university trained teacher unionist must be like?  The first cohort would have graduated this year  (2011). Can you imagine what a doctoral degree  –  a PhD in teacher unionism  –  would be like?

Or worse still, is progressivism and NeoMarxism such a given, a fait accompli, that it’s not worth challenging?  Is the penetration that bad?

Today I had an essay published in our local newspaper’s blog on the topic of the lack of leadership in education.  It’s a rather long essay and I mentioned NeoMarxism a few times.  Imagine my immense surprise when Google Search engine picked this up within a few hours:  NeoMarxism in Public Schools.

I see that the topic is not new, so let’s have a go.  I need to know more and so do others.  Just what are we dealing with here?

Below is the essay I mentioned.

Opportunists Love the Vacuum

(in Vancouver Sun blog, The Report Card, 2011 02 24)

I’ve written many essays on how the public education system in BC has been hijacked by special interests.  The “real leadership” in BC education is “behind the scenes” – pulling the levers and calling the shots. The system is one Big Swiss Cheese – full of holes and opportunities for squatters!

I will try to show how opportunists – the keen movers and shakers – assume leadership roles, influence and control in BC.

1.  Teacher Union Calls the Shots in BC

I explain how the BCTF, through stealth and intimidation, has acquired the role of “parallel government” in BC.  I point to Thomas Fleming’s research paper which pinpoints the year 1972 (NDP wins the provincial election) when the teacher union under “radical Marxist” Jim MacFarlan gained its foothold in education matters. I point to the current president, Susan Lambert, arrogantly acting like THE BOSS, saying BCTF should be consulted as a matter of course on educational matters.

http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2010/12/14/teacher-union-calls-the-shots-in-bc/

2.  Teacher Union Narrative Sets a Toxic Tone

I ask why should the BCTF’s left-wing ideology continue its dominance.  The population in BC generally splits 25% committed left, 25% committed conservative, and 50% uncommitted middle. Why not have people choose from a plurality of school choices? The ideological left, however, opposes school choice because they want everyone “socialized” in one system for one system!

I bring in the matter of university professors adding to the left-wing education narrative.  UBC’s Charles Ungerleider decries the media reporting “neoliberal” values of “individualism, choice, competition, productive efficiency, and private enterprise.”  The opposite of neoliberalism is neoMarxism.  Does Ungerleider suggest the media should extol neoMarxist values?

SFU Professor Donald Gutstein quotes a Marxist economist in his plea to reframe BC education.

http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2011/01/21/teacher-union-narrative-sets-a-toxic-tone/

3.  Wiping the Slate Clean Won’t Solve the Testing Wars

The BCTF has a predictable annual agitation campaign. Any union issue will do.  This last decade it’s been the FSAs. (Campaigns are used for purposes such as — to stay in the public eye, to radicalize teachers, to test mobilizing techniques, to threaten and cajole, to form coalitions, etc.)  Many trustees, school boards, and now the principals/vp association have joined the resistance.

The BCTF exploitation of parents in this cause is unconscionable. It is the height of usurpation and violation of the trust of parents – parents who are so eager to do what’s best for their children.  Parents don’t readily see the politics behind their ill-usage. I show how a BCTF article in their magazine boldly says that in lieu of a teacher boycott there should be a “Parent Boycott”.

http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2011/01/25/wiping-the-slate-clean-wont-solve-school-testing-wars/

4.  Who Should Rule Education – The Government or Teacher Union?

BC is seen as cowardly in face of BCTF threats. The national paper, the Globe and Mail had an article on the matter.  Over 130 comments. I made 4 comments explaining to other Canadians our pitiful circumstances.  I reiterated how it was time for school choice, that vouchers would be welcome so that parents could choose non-conflicted schools.

I showed how lay control via school boards is compromised by trustees who pledge to support teacher union causes in exchange for electoral support. I mentioned C&D and SLAPP tactics being used to chill debate and criticism by the public.

I was delighted when the story and comments flushed out another element in the “behind the scenes” control of education.  I said:  “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.”

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

Ungerleider in another paper on Globalization states that teachers in BC “have achieved a measure of professional autonomy and influence unparalleled in other North American jurisdictions.”  The upcoming bargaining promises to be fierce!

Frankly, talking about THE SYSTEM is part of the problem. We don’t need big-time leaders! There should be no one big system.  No hierarchies. No central control.   Devolve the system so that the smaller units, the schools, are self-managing with their own local leadership subject to their own boards of directors. The model of our independent schools should be followed. New Zealand did the devolution route in 1989 (the same year the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union dissolved.)

We need to devolve in BC education and the mechanism for that is equal vouchers for all qualifying students K-12 with the funding following the student to the school of the parents’ and students’ choice.  Let there be strong leadership at the local, grassroots level!  That is what contributes to a more civil society versus our volatile hostilities now being suffered.

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.