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.

The Progressive Agenda Being Fulfilled  

(by Tunya Audain 100815, comment to Blog School for Thought (SQE) on topic “Saying it as it is” 100814 

http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/saying-it-as-it-is/ ) 

The deterioration of language skills is real and deliberate.  It is a pervasive trend with direct connections to teacher 

training where progressivism is the norm.  Canadian Deans of Education have signed onto an Accord to produce teachers 

to assume social and political roles, to contribute to social change and community transformation. 

I recently read an article http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/book_reviews/97169.html 

"John Dewey, Dumbing Down, and The Scandal of Dyslexia".  The author concludes that Dewey and his buddies, being 

socialists, “They were sick of individualism, the pioneer spirit, free enterprise, and people doing their own thing. John 

Dewey wanted you to be a happy member of a group. You didn’t need that much literacy or knowledge. Dewey actually 

saw these as impediments. He calls, especially in the early grades, for sharply curtailing the study of literature, history, 

math, science, geography and such, in order to make room for social activities, specifically, ‘cooking, sewing, manual 

training’”. 

“To advance his sociopolitical visions, Dewey was eager to dilute content and diminish learning.” 

All this is in line with what John Taylor Gatto has been saying in his “Dumbing Us Down. The Hidden Curriculum of 

Compulsory Schooling”.  Several times a winner of “Teacher of the Year Awards” in New York, when he quit teaching 

he said he no longer wished to “hurt kids to make a living.“ 

Today I found this guest column (from EducationNews) by a teacher also deploring poor English and grammar in this 

article “Grammar problems caused by ‘hyper-constructivism’”. http://betrayed-

whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2010/08/grammar-problems-caused-by-hyper.html  (from the blog, Betrayed*) 

Robert Archer faults “constructivism” which, unfortunately still exists in teacher training.  It’s a form of discovery-

learning and had Dewey as one of the historical figures influencing this development. (See Wikipedia for constructivism).  

This is what Archer said:  “Somehow, this grammar-is-imbedded movement is supposed to help students naturally take in 

what proper grammar is (i.e., grammar by osmosis). It’s very much a hyper-constructivist approach to education; the 

students are supposed to “discover” proper grammar on their own as they read good pieces. Then, somehow and some 

way, they are to emulate these proper mechanical structures in their own writing. And if the students don’t quite “take it 

all in,“ the teacher may take 2.5 minutes here and there to show them what a damn verb is.” 

Is all this deliberate, manufactured, dumbing-down? To create a class of poorly educated mass with another class of elitist 

rulers?  Sounds very Plato to me – philosopher kings!  Isn’t this what socialism is all about—We are all equal, but some 

are more equal than others? 

We need to find more essays and material about this deliberate capture of curriculum by left-wing progressives for their 

political purposes.  I found an excellent article on the hijacking of art education for the purpose of social justice, etc..  

Very, very perceptive and scary. http://www.aristos.org/aris-10/hijacking.htm   

Of course, science, math, literature are already seeing social justice themes but I haven’t seen any articles (good 

references) as persuasive as the above art article. 

Am I a conspiracy freak?  I don’t think so.  I see the progressive agenda being actualized everywhere.  Progressives are 

about a number of things, but their main thing is uniformity.  NO CHOICES.  That’s why they love government 

monopoly education.   

* Betrayed, the blog sounds like a great place to visit.  This is their write-up: 

Betrayed – Why Public Education Is Failing http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/ 

Betrayed is an online chat forum for parents, teachers and community members to offer their thoughts on what’s wrong 

with public education and how to make it work better for the students…Help teachers and parents take back the classroom 

from those who have stolen it.                      

BCTF Will Continue To Call the Shots in BC Education 

(This essay was published Dec 10 in the Vancouver Sun's blog, "The Report Card")

The Avison Report clearly illustrates how the current BC College of Teachers is dysfunctional to the fulfillment of its mandate.

Even if the BC Teachers’ Federation would agree to any concessions, or even if it is unwillingly dragged in to a different future relationship with the BCCT, the teachers’ union will likely remain unchastened and unbowed.  The BCTF’s political and union agendas will continue.

The attitude that the BCTF sees itself as THE boss in BC education has been borne out by several recent statements from BCTF Headquarters — as IF the BCTF is the parent to whom children must come.  This is an attitude of grandiose self-appointed superiority!

In a CBC interview President Lambert said that in a forthcoming meeting with the Minister of Education she will ask why the BCTF was not contacted about these three cases as revealed in the Report.  My inference here is that the BCTF feels this was a negotiable issue between the Ministry and the BCTF.  

The BCTF just doesn’t get it, does it?  After a certain point, some things are just NOT negotiable!

Avison made this point in the Report.  After some rather blatant delay and waffling in a child pornography case, Avison wrote about this inappropriate behavior: “With respect, this response acknowledges that the member who didn't get it right the first time wouldn't get it right the second time either.

"Why this was considered an acceptable response is, at best, puzzling,"

A regular reader to this blog, DLM, also picked up on this haughty attitude: “… why does the president of the BCTF believe that the minister of education should contact the BCTF regarding the specific cases rather than the college who are the regulatory body responsible for certification?  I would like an explanation on Ms Lambert's comments as to why she believes that the BCTF should have been contacted on this issue.”

A further instance of arrogance came up in a recent interview with News 11:30: "We are left kind of perplexed as to what the intention of the report is and why it's been released without any consultation with us."  http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/154786–report-bc-teachers-college-is-dysfunctional

I’ve written in other essays that the BCTF has, by stealth and intimidation, acquired the role of “parallel government” in BC education.  How has this happened?  

From a research article we see that the newly formed socialist government in 1972 seems to have given away the keys to the schoolhouse to the BCTF leadership. 

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

Don’t forget, we are entering into a collective bargaining period between the BCTF and government representatives. Is this ever a peaceful time?

Yet Another New Education Minister Tries To Tame The Beasts!

A new Minister of Education – the fifth in 9 years – has just been appointed (Oct 25/10) in British Columbia, Canada.

The field of education reform is rife with pitfalls – lurking dangers and ferocious adversaries. Any education reformer these days has their hands full.  This has never been better captured than in this cartoon by David Parkins of the Globe and Mail, a national newspaper in Canada.

Both Parkins and the author of the article “The new kid in school: Abbott readies for education challenges” are to be applauded for getting the cartoon and story so spot-on!  See story HERE  

Look at the cartoon – threatening jungle beasts, hooded eyes, no smiley faces, gritted gnashing teeth –  all facing a “Hi, glad to meet you.” sweet George Abbott, the new Education Minister. (Find 3 other sets of eyes – lurking in the background, scared and leery.) 

OOPS, what’s that slimy, gooey, slippery green stuff he’s just about to step in?

The story by Justine Hunter cautions that the new  “affable” Minister will have to be a skilled “mediator, tactful disciplinarian and ever-so-patient educator.”  She mentions that at least two of the “beasts” he will have to deal with are the “BC Teachers’ Federation [which] has warred with government of every stripe” and the school boards with their “insatiable” demands.

Mr. Abbott will need all the sympathy, support and encouragement we can provide as he deals with the education snake pit in BC.

(UPDATE:  A number of people close to education scenarios in BC have commented how apt and pertinent the cartoon is.  Someone did add that the only creatures missing in the cartoon are Hyenas!) 

Are Current Models of Education Delivery Dysfunctional?

(by Tunya Audain 100315, comment to blog Food For Thought (SQE) on topic: The Dance of the Lemons 100314 re: Newsweek cover story – Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers (Mar 15/10)

Many of the comments in this Newsweek story say the very model has become unwieldy. Yes, a lemon!

In BC, in our blogs, we talk about the need for a Royal Commission to start exploring more practical, efficient and effective models. The government is not responding to such calls. The last one we had was over 20 years ago.

On the discussion of better models I just brought forward the New Zealand model. See below:

New Zealand’s Self-Governance Education System

Considering different models in education, New Zealand immediately comes to mind.

What really sticks out is that in the early days it had a system like ours with large school districts handling many schools.

But this changed rather quickly when the government did an audit and saw that two-thirds of funding gathered for children’s education never reached the classroom.

School districts were abolished in 1989 and each school now has its own board of directors. A standard board of trustees’ membership includes:

- between three and seven parent elected trustees

- the principal of the school

- one staff elected trustee

- one student elected trustee (in schools with students above Year 9)

There are 2460 such boards in NZ.

“Well before American charter schools, New Zealand went much further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all regional school boards and making each public school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making. Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates with a board of trustees and has a high degree of autonomy.” (Wikipedia)

The belief is that those closest to where education takes place are best placed to create the optimum environments for their students and teachers. The dictionary term is subsidiarity — the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level; central high-level government should only be involved in handling things that cannot be dealt with effectively on a more local level.

Each of New Zealand’s public schools has a board of trustees. It is a Crown entity responsible for the governance and the control of the management of the school. The board is the employer of all staff in the school, is responsible for setting the school’s strategic direction in consultation with parents, staff and students, and ensuring that its school provides a safe environment and quality education for all its students. Boards are also responsible for overseeing the management of personnel, curriculum, property, finance and administration.

The orientation and training of trustees is a massive endeavor with frequent workshops, conferences and certified trainers. “Our training is practical, relevant and empowering”, says the school trustees’ association, NZSTA. Their credo: Effective governance: no excuses, no exceptions, high expectations.

The benefits to schools, community, and country cannot be overstated. Parent knowledge is a huge positive result of these responsibilities, a transferable skill to others, especially the young. School-based management works.

On the 2006 OECD ranking of countries on Science both Canada and New Zealand scored in the top seven of 57 countries assessed.

Issues the school boards deal with are similar to ours, but handled at a local level: bullying, funding, special needs, student discipline, assessment.

Opposition to standards-based assessments are similar to our anti-FSA issues and from the same sources. A newsrelease says: “School trustees say that scaremongering over league tables should not be allowed to overshadow parents’ right to know how their children are doing at school.”

New Zealand’s model is but one that can be considered in seeking fundamental and radical solutions to our current dysfunctional, frustrating and extremely wasteful education apparatus. It cannot be called a “system”!