Transforming Education - The Mantle of Leadership – Part 3
In my last post, I talked about the importance of education in ultimately changing the political culture that besets us today. Specifically, I examined the role that a knowledge of history can play in providing much needed context for interpreting events.
Although this knowledge may not necessarily provide easy answers to the many problems we face, it does give us the tools to ask the right questions and evaluate the answers. And it is precisely for this reason I am not hopeful that governments will mandate more history in their curricula. With a more informed citizenry, governments might be challenged on the facile rhetoric that allows countries to accept the abrogation of civil rights, violations of constitutions and charters, interception of personal communication, imprisonment, without charge or due process, all in the name of “the war on terrorism.” People might demand answers as to why their country can’t afford universal health care while billions are spent monthly to wage war in a country that never posed a threat. Informed citizens might want to know why aboriginals live in third world conditions while corporate and personal income taxes are cut, and budget surpluses are accruing. This list of potential queries is endless. Just imagine if leaders knew that their misbegotten policies were going to held up to vigorous public scrutiny and could no longer be justified by platitudes!
So it is doubtful that governments will make the changes to education needed to produce a thinking and critical people. Yet I do believe change is possible, and that history can be made a core subject occupying the same position of importance in the curriculum as do English and mathematics. The responsibility for bringing this about rests with the teachers themselves. Most history teachers I have known over the years have been very passionate about their subject, and they now need to begin to channel that passion into political action, forcing the issue into the public arena.
As well, the public, especially that segment that currently has children in the system, has an even bigger role to play. They first must realize that the critical thinking skills which a study of history can develop are as crucial as any computer or other job-enhancing skill that public education can impart. Next, they must make their demands known to their school districts and their provincial and state governments. Obviously it is not a process that will see results overnight, but it is vital that it begin immediately.
It was Socrates who said that the unexamined life is not worth living. A knowledge of history can contribute significantly to that pursuit, and it can also give us the skills by which we can intelligently evaluate the society in which we live.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Monday, August 6, 2007
A Timely Column
I just read an article by Linda McQuaig which amply demonstrates what happens when the government assumes that its citizens are disengaged from the political process. Especially interesting is the fact that extraordinary efforts are being made to keep ordinary citizens far away from the meeting site.
Waking People Up! - The Mantle of Leadership – Part 2
In an earlier posting I discussed how the mantle of leadership is a heavy responsibility, much of it discharged in an irresponsible and self-aggrandizing manner. I suggested that when power is abused, the people can suffer in many ways: physically, economically, and, perhaps most significantly, spiritually. I also suggested that the world is hungry for direction from those who are selfless and morally centered. Today I’d like begin discussing how to achieve such leadership.
The beginnings of change, I believe, lie in cultivating a more aware citizenry through improvements in education. Such a citizenry would then have the means to resist a phenomenon all too apparent in recent years, the drift toward simplistic thinking, the kind of thinking that allows politicians to go unchallenged in their abuse of rhetoric and logic. Consider such statements as “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” (George Bush); “We aren’t the government; we’re the people who have come to fix government,” (Mike Harris, former Premier of Ontario); “People who criticize the Afghan mission aren’t supporting the troops,” (Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada).
What changes should be made? Ask a Canadian student the historical significance of a man named Macdonald and they might say he constructed the golden arches as readily as they might identify him as Canada’s first Prime Minister, the man responsible for building the Canadian Pacific Railway. I don’t know how it is in other jurisdictions, but in Ontario, only one course in History is mandatory; I would make it required throughout the four years of high school, so that upon graduation, each student would have had some exposure to Canadian, British, Ancient and World History, thereby possessing a tool invaluable to informed democratic participation: context.
Without context, citizens can become pawns in the hands of powerful interests. Take, for example, the commonly accepted assertion of business that continuous downsizing, rationalizing of resources and the pursuit and achievement of ever-increasing profits at the expense of workers is a necessity in today’s global marketplace. If we lack historical context, what choice do we have but to accept as unavoidable the consequent disruption in people’s lives through layoffs, endless pressure to increase productivity, and less and less participation in the profits that their work makes possible?
We must accept it unless we know something of the history of the Industrial Revolution. During the early 19th century, men, women, and children were ruthlessly exploited for their labour and then callously discarded when they had no more to contribute. 14-16hour work days were the norm, and children as young as five entered the factories and coals mines, only to emerge years later, crippled, deformed, incapacitated by lung disease, awaiting early death at about age 25.
It was a time, of course, when there were no benefits, no workplace protections from hazardous conditions, no compensation for injuries, and it was not uncommon for women and children to be beaten if they were late for work or found to be in any other way impeding the production process. Only through the brave and moral leadership of activists, thinkers and politicians were these horrible conditions ultimately ameliorated.
Without this kind of historical context, how can a citizen counter or even disagree with the ever-increasing notion that government is a bad thing and should have very little role in our lives, and that only an entirely unfettered marketplace will somehow ultimately redress all imbalances and problems. For example, one doesn’t have to look hard to find some commentators suggesting that, even though corporations are making record profits, workers need to temper their wage demands and even give wage and benefit concessions. Or that trade with China will promote human rights; if this is so, why has the United States had a trade embargo of Cuba almost 50 years? Aren’t both countries Communist? What is the difference in the suppression of human rights that one country should be traded with and another embargoed? Who can ask these questions if they don’t know basic history?
I will be continuing this thread in my next post.
The beginnings of change, I believe, lie in cultivating a more aware citizenry through improvements in education. Such a citizenry would then have the means to resist a phenomenon all too apparent in recent years, the drift toward simplistic thinking, the kind of thinking that allows politicians to go unchallenged in their abuse of rhetoric and logic. Consider such statements as “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” (George Bush); “We aren’t the government; we’re the people who have come to fix government,” (Mike Harris, former Premier of Ontario); “People who criticize the Afghan mission aren’t supporting the troops,” (Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada).
What changes should be made? Ask a Canadian student the historical significance of a man named Macdonald and they might say he constructed the golden arches as readily as they might identify him as Canada’s first Prime Minister, the man responsible for building the Canadian Pacific Railway. I don’t know how it is in other jurisdictions, but in Ontario, only one course in History is mandatory; I would make it required throughout the four years of high school, so that upon graduation, each student would have had some exposure to Canadian, British, Ancient and World History, thereby possessing a tool invaluable to informed democratic participation: context.
Without context, citizens can become pawns in the hands of powerful interests. Take, for example, the commonly accepted assertion of business that continuous downsizing, rationalizing of resources and the pursuit and achievement of ever-increasing profits at the expense of workers is a necessity in today’s global marketplace. If we lack historical context, what choice do we have but to accept as unavoidable the consequent disruption in people’s lives through layoffs, endless pressure to increase productivity, and less and less participation in the profits that their work makes possible?
We must accept it unless we know something of the history of the Industrial Revolution. During the early 19th century, men, women, and children were ruthlessly exploited for their labour and then callously discarded when they had no more to contribute. 14-16hour work days were the norm, and children as young as five entered the factories and coals mines, only to emerge years later, crippled, deformed, incapacitated by lung disease, awaiting early death at about age 25.
It was a time, of course, when there were no benefits, no workplace protections from hazardous conditions, no compensation for injuries, and it was not uncommon for women and children to be beaten if they were late for work or found to be in any other way impeding the production process. Only through the brave and moral leadership of activists, thinkers and politicians were these horrible conditions ultimately ameliorated.
Without this kind of historical context, how can a citizen counter or even disagree with the ever-increasing notion that government is a bad thing and should have very little role in our lives, and that only an entirely unfettered marketplace will somehow ultimately redress all imbalances and problems. For example, one doesn’t have to look hard to find some commentators suggesting that, even though corporations are making record profits, workers need to temper their wage demands and even give wage and benefit concessions. Or that trade with China will promote human rights; if this is so, why has the United States had a trade embargo of Cuba almost 50 years? Aren’t both countries Communist? What is the difference in the suppression of human rights that one country should be traded with and another embargoed? Who can ask these questions if they don’t know basic history?
I will be continuing this thread in my next post.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
People Responding Selflessly
As reported in the local paper today, people in Ontario have been responding to the Premier’s call to conserve energy. Despite the extremely hot and humid conditions of the past several days, we have managed to keep our energy usage below record levels. According to the item, Ontario's all-time record for electricity demand was set last year on Aug. 1, when users powered through 27,005 megawatts. That record hasn't been cracked so far. Even in this week's heat wave, usage peaked at 25,584 megawatts. This is directly attributed to both individuals and businesses reducing their power usage.
I post this information only to demonstrate how people will respond positively to aid the common good, reinforcing the need I have been discussing for strong, morally-centreed leadership, a theme I will be returning to next week.
I post this information only to demonstrate how people will respond positively to aid the common good, reinforcing the need I have been discussing for strong, morally-centreed leadership, a theme I will be returning to next week.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Manipulation of Marks
After reading the New York Times about mark manipulation referred to in the previous posting, I started feeling a little guilty about thus far not discussing my own acquaintance with such practices. Let me preface what is about to follow by saying that while administrators have the legal authority to overrule a teacher’s judgment, the circumstances under which they do so are more often motivated by political expedience than they are by any stretch of pedagogical justification. In these instances, the effect of this poor leadership is to breed cynicism amongst the staff, underscoring the “unseen but highly contagious disease” metaphor of Hamlet discussed earlier.
One instance from the past I can personally attest to arose when the Grade 10 science class went on a fieldtrip as their culminating activity. The tasks were fairly involved, but because all did rather poorly on it, retroactively the criteria for the activity were changed to, as I recall, ‘data collection’, so that each participant got at least 80%. The teachers of the students who did not go on the fieldtrip were instructed to alter their culminating tasks so that each would achieve at least the same mark. Now, I can’t honestly say whether the administration was aware that this was done; however, the fact that such a dereliction of academic responsibility occurred has to be, even indirectly, an indictment of the kind of atmosphere established by that administration.
Another instance involved, once again, the science department. A teacher who had been experiencing some health problems failed to mark 2 or 3 student assignments out of about 35. None was a major assignment. After a couple of complaints from parents, the administration, after consulting with the teacher, decided to raise everyone’s mark by 4 percentage points. Now, given the small number of unmarked assignments in this case, probably the most that would have been involved was about 1 percentage point. The effect of the change in marks meant that students who had failed the course now passed; since this was a senior class, conceivably some students gained an unfair advantage in competing for university scholarships; the students, of course, and all their friends became aware of it, so one can imagine the resultant cynicism; and finally, such an act really paved the way for more such ‘compromises’ in the future. Once that kind of precedent is openly established, teachers, especially inexperienced ones, assume this is the ‘way of the world,’ and thus see less reason to remain principled and resolute in the future.
Quite a price to pay in order to placate a couple of disgruntled parents.
One instance from the past I can personally attest to arose when the Grade 10 science class went on a fieldtrip as their culminating activity. The tasks were fairly involved, but because all did rather poorly on it, retroactively the criteria for the activity were changed to, as I recall, ‘data collection’, so that each participant got at least 80%. The teachers of the students who did not go on the fieldtrip were instructed to alter their culminating tasks so that each would achieve at least the same mark. Now, I can’t honestly say whether the administration was aware that this was done; however, the fact that such a dereliction of academic responsibility occurred has to be, even indirectly, an indictment of the kind of atmosphere established by that administration.
Another instance involved, once again, the science department. A teacher who had been experiencing some health problems failed to mark 2 or 3 student assignments out of about 35. None was a major assignment. After a couple of complaints from parents, the administration, after consulting with the teacher, decided to raise everyone’s mark by 4 percentage points. Now, given the small number of unmarked assignments in this case, probably the most that would have been involved was about 1 percentage point. The effect of the change in marks meant that students who had failed the course now passed; since this was a senior class, conceivably some students gained an unfair advantage in competing for university scholarships; the students, of course, and all their friends became aware of it, so one can imagine the resultant cynicism; and finally, such an act really paved the way for more such ‘compromises’ in the future. Once that kind of precedent is openly established, teachers, especially inexperienced ones, assume this is the ‘way of the world,’ and thus see less reason to remain principled and resolute in the future.
Quite a price to pay in order to placate a couple of disgruntled parents.
A Very Interesting Story from Dennis Fermoyle's Blog
There is a very interestng posting by Dennis Fermoyle, based on a New York Times article discussing the sad state of academic standards in a New York school, aided and abetted by administrative interference. Check it out through this link:
From the Trenches of Public Ed.: There are no heroes in this one!
From the Trenches of Public Ed.: There are no heroes in this one!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Mantle of Leadership
As Peter Parker, aka Spiderman, learned long ago, with great power comes great responsibility. For the past two posts I have been discussing what happens when that power is abused. Today, I’d like to begin looking at the powerful effect strong and morally-centered leadership can have on all of us.
Perhaps the best immediate demonstration of this effect can be seen in the recent announcement of the formation of a group called “The Elders.” Consisting of such moral luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and Kofi Annan, their envisaged role is to try to solve problems in the world through a combination of diplomacy and moral suasion. I submit to you that the world is hungry for such selfless leadership. As cynical as I am, I couldn’t help but feel a thrill upon hearing of the involvement of my personal hero, Mandela, a man who shows all of us the best that is possible in humanity. Enduring many years of imprisonment to maintain his integrity, when freedom was promised if only he would renounce the goals of the African National Congress, allowing himself to grow old in prison, here is a man who had every right to be bitter and ultimately seek revenge on a government that had oppressed him and his people. Instead, rising to become the President of South Africa, he embraced, not retaliation, but rather forgiveness and reconciliation. Here is a man who was able to put ego aside for the greater good.
In earlier articles I talked about administrators who earned both my respect and my admiration. Their secret was that same ability to put aside ego in order to serve the greater good, education. They were, through their examples, able to motivate the staff in like manner. While the schools were never utopias, they were, for the most part, harmonious, with administration, staff, and students working toward common goals.
I believe that the existence of these two models demonstrates the potential for application in the world of government leadership. But the transition to such a world will not be easy. How do we get there? I’d like to discuss that in upcoming posts.
Perhaps the best immediate demonstration of this effect can be seen in the recent announcement of the formation of a group called “The Elders.” Consisting of such moral luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and Kofi Annan, their envisaged role is to try to solve problems in the world through a combination of diplomacy and moral suasion. I submit to you that the world is hungry for such selfless leadership. As cynical as I am, I couldn’t help but feel a thrill upon hearing of the involvement of my personal hero, Mandela, a man who shows all of us the best that is possible in humanity. Enduring many years of imprisonment to maintain his integrity, when freedom was promised if only he would renounce the goals of the African National Congress, allowing himself to grow old in prison, here is a man who had every right to be bitter and ultimately seek revenge on a government that had oppressed him and his people. Instead, rising to become the President of South Africa, he embraced, not retaliation, but rather forgiveness and reconciliation. Here is a man who was able to put ego aside for the greater good.
In earlier articles I talked about administrators who earned both my respect and my admiration. Their secret was that same ability to put aside ego in order to serve the greater good, education. They were, through their examples, able to motivate the staff in like manner. While the schools were never utopias, they were, for the most part, harmonious, with administration, staff, and students working toward common goals.
I believe that the existence of these two models demonstrates the potential for application in the world of government leadership. But the transition to such a world will not be easy. How do we get there? I’d like to discuss that in upcoming posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
