Canadian parents don’t want schools to push students into political activism

Field trips are often the highlight of a child’s school experience. But a recent “field trip” in downtown Toronto was memorable for all the wrong reasons, highlighting the disconnect between a government school board pushing kids into political activism and the strong parental preference that schools eschew political bias.

Last week, several schools in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) sent their students to a day of action by the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation, ostensibly so students could listen to the speeches and learn about mercury contamination in rivers.

While the permission letter that went home to parents stated that students would not take part in the protest, video footage and eyewitness testimony tell a different story. And the protest morphed into geopolitical issue far from downtown Toronto. Not only were students encouraged to chant anti-Israel slogans such as “From Turtle Island to Palestine, occupation is a crime,” but pictures from the event show students carrying handmade protest signs amid a heavy police presence.

Children as young as eight participated. No matter what one thinks about the current Israel/Hamas conflict, most people agree that eight-year-old kids are not old enough to comprehend the complex issues behind it. At the very least, they should not be coopted into a political protest, especially something so potentially volatile it requires a heavy police presence.

When the TDSB apologized, the vice-president of the Elementary Teachers of Toronto union local said the apology was racist, amounted to the board not standing with teachers and children, and said the organizations that expressed concern (namely, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center) were “spying on our children.”

Perhaps inconveniently for some, “our children” in this case belong to their parents, and those parents did not provide informed consent. Ontario Education Minister Jill Dunlop has ordered an investigation into the field trip. But clearly, by allowing its schools to participate, the TDSB has demonstrated once again that it has lost sight of what should be the primary focus of every school—teaching and learning.

Students attend school to learn how to read, write and do math. They should also learn about the history of our country, form good character and civic responsibility, develop an understanding of science, and gain an appreciation for music and art. These are things that all parents, regardless of political affiliation, can agree upon.

The moment any government public school departs from these common goals, they risk losing the trust of parents.

Indeed, a 2024 Leger poll (commissioned by the Fraser Institute) found that 76 per cent of parents of K-12 kids in Canada believe students should hear both sides of controversial issues, or they should be avoided entirely.

Another 91 per cent of parents believe classroom material and discussions should always be age-appropriate, and 81 per cent believe schools should provide advance notice if controversial topics are discussed during class or formal school activities.

In this case, the TDSB field trip respected none of these strong parental preferences.

Of course, if students or families wish to get involved in protests on their own time, that’s perfectly fine. And students should be allowed to write about the Middle East conflict for their English essay assignments and talk about these issues in class, so long as teachers ensure that the discussion remains balanced and parents receive a heads-up.

Finally, this fiasco underscores the importance of school choice. In Ontario, no portion of parents’ tax dollars follow their kids to the school of their choice, unlike in other provinces including Manitoba where independent schools are more accessible to families of all income levels. If Ontario families can’t afford full tuition at an independent school, their kids likely attend the local government public school, like those within the TDSB.

If the Ontario government helped fund independent schools, more families could afford them and those independent schools would be accountable to those families. And with increased competition for students, TDSB administrators might listen more to parental concerns about political bias.

Canadian parents are right—no school should ever push students into political activism. Education must be about academics, not activism.

Author:

Michael Zwaagstra

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Is Marriage the Strongest Predictor of Wealth in Canada?

Don't Miss

‘It Was Unprecedented’: Retired Border Patrol Chief Blows Whistle On How Biden Admin Hid Migrant Crisis

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

Trump signs executive order banning men from women’s prisons, gender-confused troops in military

Business / 19 mins ago

Opposition leader Poilievre calling for end of prorogation to deal with Trump’s tariffs

Alberta / 53 mins ago

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Media Roundtable from Washington

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.