Showing posts with label de-colonization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label de-colonization. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Colonization of the mind

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 I received an email about using the term settler institutions in my blogs. The writer asked how that term applied. The question indicated to me that the term and what colonization means in the context of education are not universally understood.  

In my reply I mentioned that, although they have changed since their introduction, almost all institutions that we have are the products of colonization, the name we give to the use of state power to take control of a geographic region and the people who inhabit that region.  

Prior to colonization, the Indigenous people who lived on the land we now occupy had their own languages, culture, and institutions. Those institutions were forcibly replaced by institutions that Europeans brought with them when they established dominion over the land they had forcibly occupied. The European settlers assumed the right of ownership, absolute use of the land and control of its inhabitants.  

By imposing their language, culture, and institutions upon Indigenous inhabitants, settler societies impose ways of knowing and thinking on them. The effect of such actions is a reshaping of thinking of the original inhabitants and their successors. If the process of replacing Indigenous ways of knowing and thinking with those of the settler societies occurs, it is no longer necessary to forcibly impose control; people will do that on their own.  

This is exactly what forcible removal of the original inhabitants from their land, removal of children from their parents, and institutionalizing the children and imposing settler languages and cultures sought to do. I would, were I Indigenous, think twice about sending my children or grandchildren to schools established by settlers. I would also want control of the education of my children or grandchildren to be vested in a government for and operated by my people. I would want schools in which my language and culture were taught and where my ways of knowing and thinking were the foundation of the curriculum.  

To many people public schooling appears to be a generous gift. It is not. I am not referring here to the fact that public schools are paid from tax dollars. I say that public schooling is not an open-handed gift because there is more than an exchange of tax dollars. Whether they are conscious of it or not, when someone sends their offspring to school, they are allowing the school to transform how those offspring will think and what they will know.  

Our settler society is coming to terms with the damage inflicted upon Indigenous people in the past and the present. Gradual changes are occurring to make settler institutions less hostile and more welcoming environments for Indigenous children and youth. Provision is being made for the teaching of some Indigenous languages and incorporating ways of knowing and thinking that are more common among Indigenous people.  

Those changes will gradually alter colonial institutions, making them less colonial. But they will not eliminate the fact that schools are colonial institutions. They have been created and are operated by the dominant society.  

While the colonial nature of schools in Canada is being softened, Canada continues to practice a form of colonialism elsewhere in the world. Canada is not forcibly imposing a way of life on those in other countries. The process is more subtle. Many jurisdictions in Canada operate or license the operation of schools in other countries. Those schools often adhere to Canadian curricula and employ Canadian teachers.  

Students who attend those schools do so at the behest of their parents. But make no mistake, whether they or their parents are conscious of it, the minds of those students are being colonized.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Educational Discrimination: How far have we come?


Educational Discrimination: How far have we come?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus of Education, The University of British Columbia

[permission granted to reproduce if authorship acknowledged]
 

Social justice has been a theme in UBC’s teacher education program for many years. The Faculty of Education has had an Indigenous Teacher Education Program for almost fifty years. The program was once called the Native Indian Teacher Education. Beginning in the late 1980s, one of the courses required of all pre-service teachers included a mandatory unit on what was referred to at the time as “Aboriginal Education.”

Cognizant that there is no simple correspondence between knowledge and behavior, one of my colleagues at UBC and I were curious to find out whether pre-service students would make discriminatory judgements about the performance of Aboriginal students. We created an experiment.[i] We asked 50 pre-service teachers to make placement decisions based on the records of 24 fictitious students. We constructed a record for each student that described each student’s prior academic performance from grade four through grade seven in language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, music and art. 

On one set of eight records, we indicated that the fictitious school board had received funding to provide Aboriginal programming for the students in that set. On a second set of records, identical to the first, we included information indicating that the school board had received funding to provide services for ESL students.  No such information was included on the third identical set, leading the pre-service teachers to infer that the students were neither of Aboriginal ancestry nor students for whom English was a second language. 

We randomized the order of presentation of all the records on a secure website to which pre-service teachers had access and invited them to volunteer for a study to examine and review the student records. 50 pre-service teachers volunteered to take part. The 50 students were enrolled in a course required of all teachers during the final term in the teacher preparation program. The first term of that program included a mandatory unit that addressed social and educational situations of females, "Aboriginal" people, persons with disabilities and persons for whom English was not a first language. 

In our on-line study the 50 pre-service teachers were told that they were taking part in a task designed to explore the kinds of decisions that beginning teachers make about the programs to which students should be assigned when they make the transition from elementary to secondary school.  The volunteers were asked to (a) review the 24 randomized fictitious student records, (b) consider the criteria for three program options (remedial, standard or advanced), and (c) use a scale from 1 to 10 [with one representing the remedial program (Supplementary Learning Assistance), five representing the standard program (Regular Grade Eight Program) and ten the advanced program (Rapid Advance Program)] to indicate their recommendation regarding the program best suited to each student.  The volunteers were encouraged to use the full range of numbers from one to ten to locate their recommendation for each student as close to the program to which they thought the student best suited. The volunteers were told to make their decision based on student marks, ignoring any other information on the record card.

Of course, if the pre-service teachers paid attention only to the prior achievement of students, students with high prior achievement should have received higher ratings and students whose achievement had been poor should have received lower ratings. However, when we compared the volunteers’ recommendations for “Aboriginal students” and “non-Aboriginal’ students, we found significant differences between some volunteers’ rating of supposedly Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Aboriginal students were assigned lower recommendations than their non-Aboriginal counterparts even though the fictional students in both groups had identical records of prior achievement. The decisions of some of the teachers were clearly discriminatory. Enough so that the differences in the scores assigned were significant.

We conducted our study a bit more than a dozen years ago. Since then reconciliation, de-colonization, and Indigenization have become prominent themes in education, including teacher education. One would hope that a replication of that study today would show a marked improvement in outcomes.  

Reconciliation is about creating understanding of the devastating impact of settler colonialism on Indigenous people and eliminating its continuing influence. In education, we can still see manifestations of the lingering effects of colonialism in the graduation rate gap between Indigenous learners and their non-Indigenous peers, the enrollment gap in academically challenging courses, and in higher rates of early school leaving. Lower expectations on the part of some educators and administrators can be an important contributing factor.




[i] Riley, T. & C. Ungerleider (2008) Preservice Teachers’ Discriminatory Judgments. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 54(4) 378-387.