In Ontario, our children know that something is happening to make teachers and parents unhappy. Some children are unsure, on certain days, whether they will be attending classes as usual. They may have seen teachers walking a picket line, and if their families tune into the news, they are listening and watching, too.
But, what should children know about the labour unrest, and who should be telling them? Recently, the Toronto Star reported that a Grade 7 art teacher had assigned his students the task of creating protest posters. The students had a choice of slogans, all of which supported the union's side of the dispute. Reportedly, numbers of parents were distressed when they learned of the class assignment -- and rightly so.
There is a distinction -- and it can be a difficult one to make -- between teaching about something and indoctrinating students to believe in something. We want our students to learn about the world around them and to be well-enough informed to think critically. However, we are doing them a great disservice if we determine that there is only one acceptable opinion. Well-informed citizens form their own opinions based on knowledge and reflection. They can understand, if not appreciate, points of view that differ from their own. And most teachers get that. In fact, most teachers work very hard to help their students explore the diversity of views and values that exist in our communities.
In a democracy we cannot ask our citizens, be they teachers or anyone else, to desist from forming views and opinions. The Charter guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression apply to us all. We know, for example, that some teachers are very religious people. However, our expectation is that teachers in public schools will not proselytize nor attempt to indoctrinate their students into any particular faith. Our curricula, and even our courts, have decided that it is important for students to learn that religions exist, that there are different ways in which people experience faith, and that our friends and neighbours may see the world through a lens that is very different from our own. And the vast majority of religious teachers have no difficulty teaching with this in mind. We do not ask these teachers to cease believing in their faiths, we ask them to be teachers.
We ask this of political teachers, too. There is nothing to prevent teachers from having strong political beliefs or views, from joining political parties, or from putting election posters in front of their homes. And it is consistent with the curriculum that teachers provide information about the variety of political views that exist both historically and currently in our country. We should, however, draw the line at teachers using the classroom to campaign for their own parties or candidates. This would not be consistent with the duties we expect teachers to perform.
If students want to organize their own political parties or peaceful protests, their views should also be respected. So long as the students are not disrupting the functioning of the school nor the capacity of others to express their own views, there is no reason to impede the exercise of their Charter rights.
We should, however expect that teachers understand that if they are using the classroom as a pulpit, be it for political or religious reasons, they are contravening one of the purposes of education. They are no longer teaching for democratic engagement. Such teachers are failing their students.
I'd really like to know what all those purposes are? Anyone ? And why is there more than one in the mind of Danielle S. McLaughlin ?
I admit that I am not a climatologist on the issue of global warming. However; I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.
In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.
In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.
In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.
In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.
How can a student write a critique about assertions made on global warming without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views to counter Anthropogenic Global Warming would be taught.
In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student/teachers should they choose to Learn from a climatologist instead from a television show hosted by a journalist with no science degrees.
I urge The school board to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed.
W Robichaud
Williams lake BC
One school system provdes an equal, equitable education for all Canada's student body. The standards, quality and common curriculum allow for every child in Ontario to receive the same education. In addition, the duplication of administrative services costs more. I would rather have those funds used to duplicate services to be used for our children's education.
Further, the Catholic School system promotes views that are at odds with Canada's own charter. It divides rather than unites, segregating Catholic students from the rest of the student populace. Wouldn't it be wiser to offer Ontario's students a world religion class on the major relgions that cross the globe? Wouldn't that promote understanding, tolerance and acceptance?
If you wish for your child to attend a faith-based school, you certainly should be able to, but not with public funds. Like Muslim, Jewish, and children of other faiths whose parents wish for them to attend a school of their faith, they have to pay for it.
You're putting children first? Then your union is doing a bad job at making sure that happens. Promising a day off and then removing that promise is a big thing to kids. But hey, enjoy your two months off a year (not including the time at christmas and your vacation time), your sick days, PA days (yeah you have to work on them but it's not as bad), and whatever else you have. Realize you have a nice cushy job and there is no reason to complain.
Be careful, you get what you pay for. Do you have this same standard for other essential services?
As a teacher, I tell students about the horrors of slavery befroe the Civil War. I do not tell students lies about the great life that people had being slaves. To produce citizens who will care about the oppressed and enslaved is the job of every real teacher. Teachers are oppressed and treated as wage slaves today. Ms. Mclaughton should go back to the classroom to realize that.
To teach children to care for the oppressed in society is the right and duty of every teacher. This teacher deserves a medal rather than a reprimand.
Educational movies ....nope...just your basic smurfs or home alone or whatever. The teacher encouraged kids to bring their fave DVDs from home to share.....
Politics does not belong in he classroom, but it is better than wadting two hours watching movies. Then again, we could spend some time with reading, or math, or geography......
Just saying
If the teacher had given the assignment of creating protest art on a subject of their choice, or on a fictional dispute, they could have learned something about why and how people protest. That would have helped them to interpret the picket lines and those who oppose them. Lost teachable moment.