Can it happen here?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The university of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Anti-racism, sex education, gender identity, health and safety, and climate science are just some of the issues dividing candidates for school trustee positions in the United States. The rudeness and crudeness of electoral contests at the national and state levels are increasingly infecting local school board electoral contests.

That such issues are arising in the US signals to me that citizens there lack a fundamental understanding of the responsibilities of school boards as stewards of the public school system. The division among candidates about the issues indicates that they believe it is the job of a school board to determine the course of study and classroom instruction. However, in many – if not all – states in the US, responsibility for policy regarding such matters as academic standards, curriculum, instructional materials, assessments, and accountability typically resides in a state board of education not with local school boards.

School board candidates in Canada hold similar misapprehensions about the responsibilities of school trustees. You can see this from their campaign material. Candidates who appeal for support by promising to “fix the schools” or to “take back the schools” or offer more arts and music or STEM are promising what they cannot deliver. As is the case in most US states, responsibility for curriculum rests with provincial and territorial ministries or departments of education - not with local boards of education.

In fact, most school or education acts stipulate that it is the responsibility of school boards to ensure that all students within the region served by the board receive the basic education program. The basic program is usually spelled out in provincial regulation, supported by a curriculum framework of goals and objectives with delineated required topics or alternatives, approved instructional support material, and specified time and credit allocations. Trustees do not determine these; they provide oversight to the superintendent or director whose responsibility it is to ensure compliance with provincial or state directives.

When newly elected trustees take office, they are often surprised to discover that matters such as those being contested by school board candidates in the United States are beyond their control. Many are frustrated by this discovery. Some come to understand the role of trustee better and can acclimate to the demands of the office. Others complain about the constraints and condemn those – often the superintendent or the director of education – who attempt to educate the trustees about the constraints and opportunities of the office. Some believe that they can overcome the guardrails established for the position by publicly chastising school board staff and criticizing their fellow trustees who attempt to enforce the rules and regulations.

I’ve written that, while some Canadian school board elections are fiercely competitive, most receive little attention from eligible voters. Voter turnout in municipal elections is modest. Voter turnout for school boards even more so. Low voter turn out makes it easier for a renegade group to sweep control of a school board.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, has 72 school boards that have a total of 688 trustees. In 2018, there were slightly more than two candidates for each available seat. But only two thirds of the seats were contested (436/688). The remaining third of the seats (247) was filled (“acclaimed” in electoral terms) by trustees who ran unopposed, of whom more than three-quarters (192) were incumbents.

2018 Ontario School Board Election Results	Totals
available seats	688
candidates seeking election	1527
trustees acclaimed	247
trustees elected	436
returning trustees	429
new trustees	254
trustees newly elected who were unopposed	55
returning trustees elected who were unopposed	192
newly elected trustees	199
returning elected trustees.	237

 I’ll be interested to see if the contests for school boards begin to mimic those in the United States. My hunch is that they won’t.

Several things distinguish Canada from the US. For instance, the vaccination roll-out and safety protocols, while not always handled well or uniformly across jurisdictions, seem to be less contentious in Canada. While some politicians, most notably in Alberta and Saskatchewan, have bowed to pressure from their vocal political supporters to resist the imposition of either the vaccines or the masks, most of the electorate in both provinces seem united in support of those measures. At the Federal level, one candidate attempted to define vaccination and personal protection as a matter of individual liberty. He increased his vote marginally over the previous election but did not win the seat for which he was running.

Another difference between Canada and the United States is that Canadians are generally more accepting and trusting of government institutions. They are also more willing to accept that individual interests must be balanced by collective responsibilities. A third is that public policy differences are relatively more nuanced than sharply divisive. Canadian policy preferences are decidedly centrist as evidenced by the similarities among the policies of most of Canada’s major parties. For example, racism is more polarizing in the United States than it is in Canada and Canadian citizens are seemingly more willing to acknowledge institutional racism than those in the US.

If it were not for some of these moderating factors, rudeness, crudeness, and polarization could eventually become characteristic of Canadian politics at the school board level. But first, they would become evident at the federal and provincial levels. Canada is not there, yet. Fortunately.

An amber alert is needed now

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 It is around this time of year that school boards report to their provincial and state agencies the numbers of students enrolled. Student numbers affect everything: school board funding, meal preparation and distribution, the organization of classrooms, the deployment of teachers and more. When students are missing from school it has consequences for them, their families, and the communities in which they live. It is global concern and fundamentally a child protection issue.

While missing students are obviously absent from school, students who are absent may not be missing (unaccounted for). I have expressed my concern about absent students in an earlier blog. The one you are reading now is about the students who have not shown up for school this year.

I read an article from October 9^th about the NYC Department of Education issuing a directive to principals to find the missing children and youth. Why such a directive is necessary boggles the mind, but, if it is needed, I’m for it. Finding the missing students should obviously involve the schools in which the students are enrolled, because schools presumably have a relationship with the student and the student’s family. But efforts should be a top priority for every level of the education system and beyond.

While there are many things the education system can do to find the missing students. The education system will need the cooperation of other agencies, including social welfare and income assistance, public housing authorities, justice, health and mental health, sport and recreation, etc. I fear that agencies beyond the education system will be hesitant to cooperate with the education system because of the protection of privacy.

Protection of privacy for the students and their families is not a trivial concern. When privacy is breached, its impact can range from stigmatization of the child and her family to the use of student and family information to perpetrate criminal activity. Governments cannot leave to school boards alone the responsibility of negotiating the complex privacy issues that pertain to finding the missing students.

Students missing from school is a child and youth protection issue that has been magnified by COVID-19. It is a social emergency. Governments must respond as they do when there are large scale natural disasters. Governments must use the power that is vested in them to ensure that privacy concerns are not a barrier to finding the missing students. Using those powers and working with their protection of privacy personnel, governments can craft emergency powers that remove the obstacles to information sharing among agencies.

Governments should create a provincial or state body with the authority to oversee the efforts to find the missing students, removing bureaucratic and other barriers, ensuring rapid communication, and accountability. At a minimum, the coordinating body should include senior officials from ministries and departments of education, social welfare and income assistance, public housing authorities, justice, health and mental health, sport and recreation, etc.

An amber alert is issued when a child is suspected of having been abducted in the community where I live. Its purpose, among others, is to alert the entire community and engage every citizen in attempting to locate the child or youth. We need similar signals and efforts until we can locate and return every student who should have been in school this school year.

What is equity in education?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permissions to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Shortly after posting my blog Good Intentions are not Enough I received an email from a reader asking about my conception of equity. Here is my response:

The promise of education is that who one is, where one lives, and with whom one lives should not affect the educational outcomes one achieves. That means that, all other things being equal, students should receive the same treatment, the same resources, and achieve the same outcomes unless there are good (justifiable) reasons why they should not.

There are two considerations in this assertion. One is all other things being equal (i.e., the same). Obviously no two persons are the same. So, what becomes important is on what relevant dimensions should there be equivalence or sameness.

The second consideration in the assertion is unless there are good (justifiable) reasons why they should not be treated in the same way, receive the same resources, or achieve the same outcomes. The key is what counts as good (justifiable) reasons.

Canadian education is heavily influenced by the United States. Two US documents influenced Canadian thought and discourse about inequities (inequalities) in educational opportunity. One is that the assignment to separate facilities based on the pigmentation of one’s skin is inherently unequal.[1] Notwithstanding the considerable differences of opinion that have emerged about it over the past fifty plus years, another influential document was Equality of Educational Opportunity by the sociologist James S. Coleman and others.[2] A central assertion of the Report was that the educational and economic backgrounds of the parents of Black students (and students of other ethnicities) and White students was the main influence on their achievement.

Those ideas – especially the second - helped enshrine the notion that children from families living in impoverished circumstances and whose caregivers are less well educated enter school at a disadvantage relative to their more affluent peers whose parents are better educated. Provincial practice and the practice of school boards reflect that assumption in their efforts to mitigate that disadvantage.

Many provincial governments have an index of economic and social conditions that they use to allocate funding to school boards, for example. School boards that routinely provide half-day kindergarten have justified providing full-day kindergarten in schools located in impoverished communities.  Arguments for the provision of early childhood education often refer to the notion that such programs will help ameliorate the differences between children living in poverty and their more affluent peers. There are other practices that are justified in the name of equity or equality of educational opportunity that argue that differences in economic and social capital justify the differential opportunities and treatment of students. I have written elsewhere that the educational impact of the additional resources is rarely evaluated.

The provision of additional educational support to children whose behaviour is different from most of their peers is justified based on those differences (intellectual and learning disabilities; behavioural needs or mental illness; physically dependent, physical disabilities or chronic health impairments; deafness or hearing impairment; blindness or visual impairment, etc.). These differences are deemed relevant to ensuring the educational success of these students. A key question is: which, if any, of these differences justifies adjusting one’s expectations regarding the outcomes of education?

Justifying differential outcomes for students whose intellectual capacity is severely impaired is not difficult, though how much of a difference in outcome is more problematic.   Should similar adjustments be made for students who are deaf (or hearing impaired) and or blind (visually impaired)? What, if any, learning disability justifies lowering educational expectations? These questions are not often asked. Nor do we evaluate whether the additional supports are making a measurable difference in performance or outcomes for these students.

In education, there appears to be little difficulty in discriminating among students and arguing that such discriminations are made for good reasons. Justifying differential outcomes is more complicated. Differential outcomes are too often justified in terms of the differences that were used to justify additional resources. That seems a bit circular to me. It makes me wonder whether the additional resources make a difference and in what ways. I am not arguing for the elimination of such resources, just careful evaluation of their impact.

---

[1] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf

Why we need the Foundation Skills Assessment

 Charles Ungerleider. Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

British Columbia is administering its annual assessment of numeracy and literacy, the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA), in October and November of this school year. Its administration will generate useful information about how well the system is preparing students in those key areas. But the administration of the FSA will also generate much misinformation that deserves to be corrected.

 Those who argue that the FSA should not be administered during COVID have it wrong. COVID is an event that has had a significant impact on student learning, the magnitude of which is unknown. Based upon evidence from elsewhere, it is likely that the most vulnerable students have suffered disproportionately. We should find out! The FSA is the only tool that will provide a province-wide picture of COVID’s impact on students. It is hard to fix a problem if you don’t know its scope.

 As is the case with most large-scale student assessments, the Foundation Skills Assessment is a tool for decision-making at the provincial, school board, and school levels. The FSA provides useful information about system performance and program effectiveness and about equitable performance and outcomes. Assessments like the FSA make it possible to monitor the performance of groups of students (racialized, Indigenous, boys and girls) to ensure equity of outcomes.

 Although used for different purposes, both classroom and large-scale assessments are valuable. The information from large scale assessments can help to inform plans that schools make for improving student performance that teachers appraise using classroom assessments.

Classroom assessments are specific to classroom conditions and student characteristics. Classroom assessments, while valuable for individual learning, do not provide robust, reliable information at a system-wide level using common benchmarks. Classroom assessment is different from large-scale testing in many ways: purposes, techniques, frequency, timing, consequences.

Large-scale assessments are designed to produce province-wide information based upon standardization of administration, scoring, and reporting. Assessment at the classroom, school district, or provincial level do not use a common measurement scale. The meaning of a C+ assigned by grade 8 teachers means different things in Surrey, Smithers, and Saanich.

The FSA is a ‘no stakes’ assessment. The results have no bearing on any individual student or teacher. The FSA is not used to make decisions about individual students or teachers. The information about student performance is not used to assign marks (grades), determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade or retained in grade, or influence any other aspect of a student’s school experience. The same is true for teachers. The results do not affect their salary, job security, or anything else.  

Nonetheless, like many experiences – making a new friend, flying in an airplane, taking an amusement park ride - the FSA sometimes creates anxiety. Educators and parents play an important role in alleviating assessment anxiety. Teachers can help prevent anxiety about the FSA by explaining the use of the assessments.

The FSA assesses dimensions of student performance in reading, writing, and numeracy that are regarded by teachers, parents, and the broader society as being fundamental or foundational to student learning. It is therefore no surprise that teachers feel they should “teach to the test.” The no-stakes nature of the FSA should eliminate any perceived need to teach to the test, but there is nothing wrong in teachers teaching to a test that assesses important foundational skills. It is especially important for teachers to give students an orientation to the kinds of questions and tasks they will encounter on the assessment so that confusion or misunderstanding aren't the cause of less than representative performance.

Schools teach more than reading, writing, and numeracy. They teach personal and social development, citizenship and social responsibility, science, the arts, languages, etc.  If what counts is measured, I think we should create assessments for all the areas to which we devote our scarce time and resources.

Reconciliation Requires Transformation

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I am surprised at the number of Indigenous students whose families allow them to attend public schools in Canada. If I was a parent whose ancestors attended residential schools and was suffering from the inter-generational trauma that taking children from their families created, I would think twice about sending my children or grandchildren to schools established by settlers.

Most Canadians consider residential schooling as abhorrent, if not criminal. In fact, given their intent and the mistreatment of children and youth in their care, we should not call them schools. Although residential schools no longer exist, the public schools Indigenous children attend are settler institutions that do not reflect Indigenous epistemologies, language, or culture.  As recognized by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

Much of the current state of troubled relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians is attributable to educational institutions and what they have taught, or failed to teach, over many generations. Despite that history, or, perhaps more correctly, because of its potential, the Commission believes that education is also the key to reconciliation. (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future p. 234)

There are schools and school systems that are trying to shed the negative teachings of the past and incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing and being, but the efforts are nascent and sporadic.

Even if curricula reflecting Indigenous perspectives were widely available (which they are not), most non-Indigenous teachers do not understand Indigenous epistemologies sufficiently well to be able to adapt to new pedagogies and curricula to include them

An increasing number of schools are trying to incorporate Indigenous symbols, but I suspect that most Indigenous learners do not see themselves reflected in schools because the symbolism is not complemented by Indigenous content. My hunch is that there are Indigenous learners whose parents conceal the identities of their children because they are fearful of mistreatment.

Although the intentions are different, in rural and remote communities without a secondary school, there are students who must live away from their families and communities to attend school. I would not be comfortable sending my children away to school. But, if I did not send them, a social service agency would likely threaten to take them from me and make them Crown wards.

These are but a few of the impediments facing Indigenous learners that schools and the broader society must remove. But, unless they are removed, Indigenous parents are justified to distrust settler schools and only reluctantly allow their children to attend. Addressing the historic mistreatment of Indigenous people by settlers and the part that residential schools played in attempting to systematically eradicate Indigenous language and culture is a necessary step but one that is not sufficient.

Schools must acknowledge and value the knowledge that Indigenous children and youth bring to school. Instead of disregarding such knowledge, and in the process disparaging it, schools must use that knowledge as a foundation upon which to build. Children and youth, Indigenous and non-Indigenous are more likely to succeed when the knowledge they possess and the competencies they have are incorporated in the fabric of schools.

If Indigenous elders and knowledge-keepers were formally invited to participate in schools, they could help educate both students and the professional staff. That would be another step toward reconciliation. Land and nature play important parts in the lives of Indigenous people. Using land-based learning as the staging point for instruction rather than an extension to current approaches would recognize its value.

We need to fast-track the preparation and hiring of Indigenous teachers. Doing so won’t transform the curriculum and pedagogy but it will provide students with models of Indigenous leadership. There are examples of Indigenously focussed teacher education programs in existence for some time. While those continue, the registrars of teacher certification at the provincial level should authorize graduated certification to enable Indigenous people to combine employment with study to earn laddered certification.

The preparation of non-Indigenous teachers has improved in recent years in most faculties of education, but there is room for improvement. But improvements will remain limited until there are Indigenous faculty members who can help transform teacher preparation in more fundamental ways.

None of the suggestions I have made are new or radical. However, they are not part of the fabric of public schooling. Until they and other changes are incorporated, Indigenous parents will reluctantly allow their children to attend school, but they are unlikely to fully embrace schooling in settler institutions.

Good intentions are not good enough

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Concerned about equity, some school boards differentiate the allocation of resources among schools. The underlying assumption is that, in some schools, there will be significant numbers of students facing challenges that require additional resources.

There is little doubt that there are additional costs associated with educating students with developmental disabilities whose conditions necessitate the assistance of personnel in addition to the classroom teacher. Students with extreme externalizing behaviour often need placements in  designated classrooms with fewer students and the assistance of additional staff. Students who are deaf or blind often require specialized equipment or additional classroom personnel to enable them to benefit from the instructional program.

Equity allocations often extend beyond the resources provided for such students. Some school boards provide additional resources to schools in catchments with large numbers of children whose families live below the poverty line, or where there are high rates of student mobility, absenteeism, early school leaving (dropouts), or where there are students for whom English or French is an additional language. The thinking is that such challenges require extraordinary effort to ensure that students’ educational progress is commensurate with their peers who do not face such challenges.

The schools receiving additional resources for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph are typically afforded considerable discretion about how those resources can be used. The decisions on resource use are typically idiosyncratic. Some use the resources to increase their staffing, purchase proprietary educational programs to enrich the educational experience, and/or put the resources to other uses in aid of improving outcomes for students and reducing gaps among identifiable groups of learners. We should always remember that scarce resources allocated to one place take resources away from another. If the other activities are not offered, students are deprived of the opportunities afforded by those activities.

Improving outcomes and reducing inequalities are, arguably, the two most important goals of education. It is very important to know if additional resources help in achieving those goals and the best applications of those additional funds. Because resources are scarce, it is important to understand their impact. Program evaluation is crucial. Boards must evaluate the impact of their efforts to improve outcomes and eliminate inequalities. But, in the absence of systematic assessment, it is difficult to know what difference, if any, the additional resources make, or to tell if the resources might be applied to greater advantage in some other way. Most schools and school boards do not systematically assess student performance or outcomes and, thus, are unable to determine the absolute impact of the additional resources, or their impact upon reducing gaps.

Moreover, even if schools and boards did assess performance and gaps systematically, the idiosyncratic application of resources across schools would make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the relationship between the resources and outcomes. However, the idiosyncratic use of resources at the school level is often justified with the argument that those closest to students are in a better position to know what will work. Educators should welcome systematic evaluation of programs so that they can demonstrate the impact of the additional resources for which they advocate.

By devising and applying formulas for the allocation of resources to students who face challenges, school boards can persuade themselves that they are addressing inequities. Perhaps they are. They can claim having tried to provide for ‘equality of opportunity’ for students – whatever that might mean. But, in the absence of evidence of impact on outcomes, we simply do not know.  That is not good enough.  

Schools might be asked to demonstrate the impact of the resources they have received: how have student outcomes improved because of the new programs, or staffing, or infrastructure. A school might say that it needs the additional resources because, in the absence of those resources, student outcomes would deteriorate. Again, school boards would want evidence that is the case.

And what would a school board do if the schools were unable to demonstrate impact? A school might argue that the problems for which it receives additional resources are beyond the control of the school. It might say that poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity are things over which school have little control. Making such a statement would be tantamount to saying that schools are unable to teach children from such environments, an insupportable claim. If it were true, why would school boards provide the additional resources in the first place.     

My point is that school boards that have an equity allocation formula but fail to assess the impact of the formula on student outcomes are not making effective use of their scarce resources. Some might say that such a gesture was, in today’s terminology, ‘performative’ or ‘virtue signalling.’

When Affirming the Obvious is Necessary

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 Apparently common sense is not so common. I wrote last year about a school denying an application from 17-year-old who sought to repeat Grade 11 because he felt that school interruptions from COVID-19 were putting his aspirations in jeopardy.

I was impressed by the student’s mature judgement and dismayed by the decision of the school to deny him the opportunity to further his education and by the lack of procedural fairness. I thought that the incident was an unfortunate one-off. I was wrong.

The California State Legislature is obviously concerned that such requests will be ignored or denied out of hand. It recently approved a bill amending the Education Code requiring a school district to formally respond to a consultation request from a parent that their child be retained in grade if s/he had significant deficiencies in their coursework during the pandemic. The ensuing discussion is designed to consider the recovery learning options, the perils and benefits of grade retention, the student’s academic record, and anything else relevant to a decision about whether grade retention is in the student’s best academic or social interests.

You would think that, at a minimum, such consultation would simply be common sense. The California legislature is taking no chances that common sense will prevail in its schools.

Under what we once called normal conditions, many schools engage in what is sometimes called credit rescue. ‘Credit rescue’ is the provision of extra help to students at risk of failing a course. Assistance takes many forms: additional one-to-one instruction or small group instruction; help with assignments that have been missed or handled unsuccessfully; formulating a plan to help a student improve, often in consultation with parents or guardians. In essence, credit rescue aims to help students to overcome obstacles to their successful completion of the course.

Some schools offer ‘credit recovery’ to students who may have completed a course, but not fully satisfied the curricular expectations at an acceptable, passing level. This typically means that students are permitted to repeat only those units or material that they have not mastered rather than the entire course.

The variation among students at any grade level will be greater post-pandemic than it was prior. This means that schools will need to make extraordinary effort to help students recover from its impact. This will require more frequent diagnostic assessments of student learning, more one-to-one and small-group instruction, closer monitoring of student progress, more finely tuned and tailored assignments linking prior knowledge to the new material to be learned, more opportunity to redo assignments and make-up units that were not successfully completed.

Teaching is always challenging, but post-pandemic teaching will prove more challenging than at any time in the past for teachers.  Closing the gaps and improving results will be more important than ever. Schools and teachers will need to make adjustments that they might not otherwise have made in the absence of the pandemic. The California legislation signals that fact indirectly and, in the process, exposes a truth about schools that many of us avoid discussing: that school structure and the convenience of the instructional staff too often take precedence over student welfare.  

A tap dance worthy of the Nicolas Brothers

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I, like many others, have been impressed with the way the BC government has handled its response to COVID-19. British Columbia Premier John Horgan and Minister of Health Adrian Dix were smart to allow Dr. Bonnie Henry to take the communications lead. While both Horgan and Dix speak with authority and sincerity, both are outshone by Dr. Henry.

However, like many others to whom I’ve talked, I was blind-sided by the verbal choreography of the August 24^th announcement of the mask mandate for schools. I haven’t seen tap dancing like the answers to the questions at the press conference since I saw the Nicolas Brothers! It took me a while to figure out the dance routine, a variation on the 8-beat riff walk (I think) Here is my paraphrase of what I heard:

The most effective protection from COVID-19 (and the current Delta variant) is to have had two vaccinations. However, Government is not mandating vaccinations because there have been very high vaccination rates among teachers and staff. Nonetheless, Government is being cautious, so masks are mandated in schools (grade 4 and up). Moreover, to check the spread of the Delta variant, Government is requiring vaccine passports for people who wish to voluntarily attend and congregate at sporting events and in restaurants. But as far as schools and universities – places where people are congregated – Government is not requiring vaccinations because the risk of infection is low (and the political risk of requiring vaccinations is high).

I don’t have a clue about the political calculus, if any, but, like everyone else, I can speculate. Issuing a vaccination mandate might appear straight forward, but on closer inspection might prove more challenging for government. If the government or school boards mandate vaccinations, their employees, or the representatives of the employees (in most cases unions like the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), could argue that the mandate breaches the Charter rights of their members.  Whether the employees or unions would prevail in court in the face of a health pandemic is questionable. But government’s response is puzzling, nonetheless.

Governments don’t like dustups with anyone, especially those perceived to be friendly to the current regime. However, the BCTF has been calling upon government to “mask-up.” Surely the Federation is not hesitant about mandating vaccinations for its members. Especially since, as we were told, almost 80% of teachers and support staff are said to have been vaccinated. I’m no lawyer, but I doubt that the courts would grant a stay of a vaccination mandate while the issue was adjudicated.

It appears to me that the BCTF is doing a bit of tapdancing of its own. On August 24^th, Terri Mooring, President of the BCTF, said that the Federation would not be opposed to making vaccinations mandatory for its member. Four days earlier, the BCTF launched a petition urging on government to do a variety of things. The petition reads, in part:

Given what we know about the highly contagious Delta variant, we need to err on the side of caution and return to schools with everyone wearing masks. Vaccinations are integral to safer schools, but can’t be our only line of defense. We know for certain that none of the students 11 years old or younger will be vaccinated, and the vaccination rate for eligible youth still isn’t as high as we would all hope to see.

We need more than vaccines. 

The BCTF is also urging government to implement the following measures ahead of the new school year:

·         School-based clinics to allow easy access to vaccinations for ages eligible students.

·         Funding for ventilation system upgrades to meet the minimum standards of MERV 13 filters, and HEPA filters in workspaces where MERV 13 filters are not possible.

·         N95 and/or medical-grade masks available for all students and staff upon request.

·         Comprehensive COVID-19 testing strategy that includes asymptomatic testing.

·         Designated time for health and safety training at all schools and worksites.

Readers will no doubt note what I noticed: The Federation says more than vaccines are needed, but it never calls upon government to mandate vaccines.

The members of the BCTF hold the organization in high regard, but I wonder whether members will be scratching their heads as I am, wondering why the Federation did not call upon government to issue a vaccine mandate instead of declaring it would not oppose one.  

Parents apprehensive about 2021-2022 school year

 

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Students, parents, and teachers I have talked with about the past school year say that it was – let us use the word ‘challenging’ though many used more colourful language. I have heard a few rumours that some students fared better with online learning than in-person learning because they were not distracted by other students or subjected to bullying, but I have not talked with any of those students or their parents.

Students have been eager to see their friends and be reconnected with them as soon as they can.  Returning to school for most students will provide the social connections they may not have had if they were learning online. However, most are about as enthusiastic about school itself as you would expect.

Parents expressed a variety of views about the coming year. Those who had monitored their children’s online experiences expressed relief about being freed from that responsibility. Those who did it themselves or who entrusted to other caregivers to supervise their children wondered how it was possible for teachers to supervise more than two or three learners.

At the end of the last school year, the Ottawa Carleton District School Board of Ontario surveyed students and parents about the 2020-2021 school year and the coming school year.  Parents expressed apprehension about their children’s mental health and well-being, their preparedness for the next grade level, and their being able to adjust to academic expectations.

Looking across the country, school boards are placing emphasis on providing a safe return to school. Modifications are underway in some schools with questionable ventilation systems. I expect that hand-sanitizer stations will be visibly present.

In print and online, ministries of education and school boards are indicating that mental health will be a priority. School Mental Health Ontario (SMHO) has been supporting students, schools, parents, and teachers throughout the pandemic. SMHO has a framework for the return to school incorporating many important supports including action plans, focussed resources, and coordination of student access to care.  The framework addresses system leaders, school leaders, support staff, and classroom staff.

SMHO puts its material online without any apparent restrictions to its use. The material is typically role-based and stresses evidence-informed practice. The role-oriented material for teachers stresses the pivotal position of teachers in creating mentally healthy classrooms, modelling, and noticing students who may need support. SMHO is action-oriented, providing specific advice that teachers can implement. Ontario teachers who are less confident and knowledgeable will find self-paced course material they can access through the school board that employs them. All the other material is NOT restricted. I downloaded some of the detailed instructions for elementary teachers. Click here for an overview.

In addition to prioritizing student health and mental health, teachers are planning for addressing key learning areas, especially literacy because it is the foundation for learning in all areas. I know of teachers who are planning activities to celebrate the return to school.

We should all be celebrating the return to school. Not just the post pandemic return to school, but every single year. Despite their defects, schools are among the safest environments for children and youth. Where else would you leave someone about whom you feel a strong emotional attachment in the care of someone you barely know?

I think the pandemic has given parents a better appreciation of how challenging it is to teach and how important teachers are to the success of their children. I also think the wider community has a better appreciation of the social and economic benefits of schooling.

Annus Horribilis/Annus Mirabilis

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 There is little doubt that, for most people, this school year was horrible. There were many examples of extraordinary acts of kindness. But, for most teachers, the year was incredibly challenging.

Coming off such a year, it might be easy to lose sight of the huge difference that teachers make in the lives of their students. The students won’t. I didn’t when I was one. At least, as far as I remember.

When you get to certain age, you reflect on how you arrived where you find yourself. Of course, for most of us (me for sure) there was no plan. In my case I was the beneficiary of some extraordinary good luck, having been in the right place at the right time.

Part of my good fortune – perhaps most of it – was to have had some extraordinary teachers. Not just one or two, but many. Right from the beginning.

I remember being coaxed up the stairs in my elementary school by my mother. I was holding the handrail and resisting her at every step. But she used her weight and height to her advantage and was crafty. I cannot recall what inducement (bribe) she promised, but I relented. She delivered me to Mrs. Waite, a kindly kindergarten teacher who took me by the hand, led me into the classroom, and comforted me.

I grew up in a home where, because I was 11 years younger than the nearest of my siblings, I was the centre of attention. There were few obvious limits placed upon me by my parents or by my brothers and sisters. I was indulged. It was Mrs. Waite who taught me I had to wait my turn, seek permission before speaking, and share the spotlight with 25 or 30 peers.

Mrs. Waite must have liked us because she ‘re-enlisted’ to teach us in grade one. It was there that she taught me and my peers our most valuable of life’s lessons: how to read. She read to us at the beginning of each class and at the close of the school day. We learned the alphabet and its correspondence to sounds. Mrs. Waite taught us how reading was the most powerful of the tools we would acquire. Under Mrs. Waite’s tutelage I acquired the means to inform and entertain myself. Secrets – adult secrets – were no longer hidden in plain view. I could read!

Mrs. Fuller, my grade four teacher, taught us to love singing. We had a class choir. The whole class sang; no one was left out. I was given the privilege of shaking the bells during our performance at Christmastime. My hunch is that Mrs. Fuller thought I would not be able to ring the bells and sing simultaneously. I proved her wrong. She retired at the end of the year.

Mrs. Eisensen, my grade five teacher, encouraged us to be curious. “There are no bad questions,” she would remind us. In grade six, Mr. Einstein (no relation of Albert’s) engaged all of us in physical activity . . . everyday . . . rain or shine.  

My middle years in junior high school were mostly a blur. I took Latin I twice, and not for the love of the language. But the teacher I had in summer school taught me that, if I paid attention, I could master enough Latin to qualify for Latin II. I still have mixed feelings about that accomplishment.

Mr. Byrd, my grade ten English teacher encouraged us to read and appreciate poetry and difficult types of prose. He read to us like Mrs. Waite, but only at the beginning of class. Mr. Fesler, my high school civics teacher, kindled a passion for politics and government that has stayed with me. Mrs. Rocha, my grade twelve English teacher, taught me to write better compositions. Each week we would write a short essay, hand it in on Friday, and get it back with copious comments and suggestions on the following Monday. She likely had no life, but everyone of us passed the qualifying exam for entry to college-level English.

Dr. Bunzel, Dr. Collinge, and Dr. Whittaker taught me how evidence and logic could help shine light on almost any topic. They were not alone. Drs. Orkney, Guerevich, Gutierrez, Scalapino revealed the elegance of history, psychology, and statistics. Dr. Berliner mentored me when I was a doctoral student (his first).

If you are a teacher, I hope you realize the enormous influence of your work.

This is my last blogpost for school year 2020-2021. I plan to resume the blog in September – very likely on a new platform. 

I hope you have the rest and relaxation you deserve, and return refreshed to the coming school year.

Walking the Talk

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The US Supreme court will soon decide whether a school can limit the off-campus freedom of speech of a 14-year-old student. When Brandi Levy did not earn a spot on the varsity cheerleading squad, she posted a photo and message on Snapchat giving the middle finger salute and voicing her upset with a corresponding four-letter expletive about “school,” “cheer[leading],” “softball,” and “everything”.

The school barred Brandi from cheerleading for one year, arguing that punishment was justified to “avoid chaos” and maintain a “team-like environment.” Brandi sued the school district and won. The court said that the district had breached Brandi’s rights to free speech by punishing her for off-campus speech. Saying that the Court’s decision was inconsistent with rulings in similar cases elsewhere, the school district appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court where a ruling will soon be made.

It will be interesting to hear the US Supreme Court’s decision and read its reasoning. But it is important to keep in mind that Canada is different from the United States. What applies there may not apply in Canada. I doubt anyone would dispute the right and responsibility of schools to regulate student conduct on field trips, at inter-school events, and at school-sponsored activities off-campus. Few would dispute punishing a student who damages a teacher’s home, assaults another student at a park when the dispute began at school, or discriminates against another student, teacher, or school official.

Most conduct is not so clear cut. Take Brandi Levy’s case. She was away from school and sent a message to about 250 friends using Snapchat. One recipient took a screenshot of the message and showed it to her mother, a coach. The school used its power to punish Brandi.

I appreciate that schools must walk a fine line between protecting student rights and preserving order, but Brandi’s school did not appear to use the incident as a teachable moment. I wouldn’t be writing about the case before the US Supreme Court if it didn’t have implications for how schools respond to student criticism and protest.

Secondary schools typically have mission statements that refer to students becoming responsible citizens by acquiring the knowledge and dispositions that citizenship requires or as one school puts it “the wisdom, rationality, intelligence and empathy we hope to instill in all our students.” It is unfortunate that when things get a bit sketchy--as in Brandi Levy’s case--schools do not always walk the talk, communicating rather different messages than those contained in their mission statements

When schools stumble or take a misstep, those instances attract the attention of the students who learn lessons quite different from the ones taught in social studies or civics classes. A student is punished for defying a ban against singing a song deemed inappropriate when he sang the song in front of a school official during lunch time. A young man in Toronto is told he ­could not bring his male date to the high school prom. When a student wearing a T-­shirt expressing his opposition to a commercial venture being pursued by his school, the school cuts the power  to the amplifiers and microphones he and his classmates were using, preventing them from performing during a school-­sponsored battle of the bands. A principal threatens students with punishment if they sign a petition against a school rule. A student is suspended from school for giving a speech to fellow athletes in which he said the soccer team existed because of “the tenacity and perseverance of several players who took it upon themselves to do the phys ed department's job and find a coach."

As expressed in many school mission statements, we want students to connect what they learn in school with the lives they lead outside of school. If schools truly want to instill wisdom, rationality, intelligence, and empathy in students, they must walk the talk.