Academics, Not Activism, Should be the Priority in School

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

“Resistance to colonialism is not terrorism.”

This quote was shown to more than 5000 Winnipeg School Division (WSD) staff last week at a professional development session that Dr. Chris Emdin from Teachers College, Columbia University delivered. Not surprisingly, many teachers found the quote offensive, with more than a dozen walking out.

The teachers who walked out did the right thing. Whatever one’s political views might be, there is no context where intentionally murdering innocent civilians, which is an act of terrorism, is acceptable.

Even more offensive was the fact that this presentation took place only two days after the first anniversary of Hamas’s brutal attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. More than 1,200 Israelis were murdered that day, with many others wounded or taken hostage.

Considering how often Hamas apologists justify their antisemitism by reframing it as “resistance” to colonialism, it’s not surprising that a quote minimizing the evils of terrorism wouldn’t go over well with many teachers, particularly Jewish educators.

WSD Superintendent Matt Henderson was quick to engage in damage control. Henderson apologized for the quote in a letter to staff and explained that “the speaker’s view does not reflect the views of the WSD in this context.”

However, Henderson shouldn’t be let off the hook so easily. No competent superintendent would organize a division-wide professional development event without carefully vetting a keynote speaker, reviewing the PowerPoint slides, and knowing exactly what message that speaker would deliver to his staff.

The fundamental issue here is how this incident exposes the divide between two different visions of public education. On one side we have the traditional view of education, which emphasizes the importance of knowledge acquisition and skill development in school. On the other side is the progressive view, where teachers engage in social justice activism and seek to liberate students from colonialism and oppression.

This is not a new debate. In her 2000 book, Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform, education historian Diane Ravitch chronicled the long struggle between traditionalists and progressives for control of Teachers College, the most influential teacher training institution in North America.

In the end, the progressives won the power struggle and took effective control of Teachers College, where Emdin currently teaches.

In other words, by inviting a well-known political activist to be the keynote speaker at this WSD event, Superintendent Henderson signaled his desire to take WSD schools in a more progressive direction, where teachers focus more on activism than on traditional academics. This won’t surprise anyone who has read any of Henderson’s many articles over the last decade or so. His left-wing political views are hardly a secret.

Not surprisingly, many parents are uncomfortable with this approach. Most parents send their children to school because they want them to learn basic facts and master essential skills—not to be indoctrinated into an ideology that conflicts with what they are taught at home.

A far better approach would be for all schools to focus on the fundamentals of teaching and learning. Help students become knowledgeable and skillful and leave political activism out of the classroom.

If teachers want to be political, they should do it on their own time. A school division’s focus should be on academics, not on political activism.

Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:#MichaelZwaagstra Education FrontierCentreForPubicPolicy

Up Next

Finance minister misleading Canadians about economic growth

Don't Miss

Canada is moving ever closer to euthanasia-on-demand without exceptions

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Essential goods shouldn’t be taxed

C2C Journal / 16 hours ago

Gwyn Morgan: Natural Gas – Not Nuclear – Is the Key to Powering North America’s Future

C2C Journal / 17 hours ago

A Rush to the Exits: Forget Immigration, Canada has an Emigration crisis

Education

Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools

Published on January 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.

In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.

According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)

By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.

It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.

It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”

So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.

Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.

Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.

Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.

Alberta

Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible

Published on December 3, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents.

This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation.

It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.

Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.

This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.

However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.

Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.

This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.

Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.

Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.

Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.