Putting Kids First?

Saw this great blog post at The Coal Mine this afternoon, and this is my response:

I've never claimed to be a diplomat so I won't start now.

To that minority of teachers who now are saying that they won't vote for the action plan because it is too vague . . . to that minority of teachers who think that they're the only ones who feel bad about potentially giving up extra-curricular activities or, who think their extra-curricular activity is the only one that counts as important . . . to that minority of teachers who feel compelled to go to the media telling how unhappy they are with our union, our action plan:

Where were you at all the local meetings, for the past year, when you could have been adding your voice to the dialogue?

Where were you when your local asked for people to step forward and join committees, run for executive office, or as happens most often, just put your name forward because we usually don't have enough people to have local elections for all positions? You could have had your say and even affected change, before the fact.

Where were you when it came time to put your name forward for the AGM, where you would have had a say in the action plan? Where were you when your fellow members spent 1/2 their spring break sitting in 12 hour meetings and having the opportunity to have their say and casting their vote for the BCTF executive? (By the way, I didn't attend nor put my name forward to attend the AGM, so this isn't sour grapes because I had to sit through those grueling days.)

You think you are putting kids first . . . how? By continuing the extra-curricular activity for a couple of months?

How about putting kids first for the years ahead? by sending a loud and clear message to this government that you care about kids, using the only avenue that this government has left open to us.

Tell them that you want to help kids by spending quality time with the individual students in your class, by differentiating their learning, and you can't do that effectively with 30+ kids.

Tell them that you want to help the special needs kids and do the best job you can with their individual programs. That, by having no more than 3 special needs kids in your class, you will be able to serve them well, but by increasing the numbers, your time for each child's program will be spread that much thinner.

Tell them you want to help, not only the coded children, but the code-pending kids and those who just require a bit of learning assistance each day by having more support -- more support teachers and learning assistance teachers -- more school psychologists who do the testing and coding -- more speech & language and OT and PT and hearing and seeing teachers and teacher-librarians. You know, those specialists that the government has reduced so greatly in number?

Put kids first, for the long haul.

Is It One More Education Fad?

I'm confused about this concept of 21st Century Learning. I've listened to and mulled over and discussed the concept but still don't have a clear grasp on how it improves children's learning—or at least, how it differs from the way I teach at present. A consummate researcher (and now Googler) at heart, I decided to do some checking in order to find what I was /clearly/ missing. 

From the BC Ministry of Education website: 

• In 21^st Century Learning, students use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems, and make decisions. Utilizing emerging technologies to provide expanded learning opportunities is critical to the success of future generations. Improved options and choice for students will help improve student completion and achievement. 
•  In its 10th Report in 2007, the Premier’s Technology Council (PTC) identified technology and e-learning as central to addressing future skill shortages in the work force, particularly in rural areas of the province. The PTC described “blended learning” – technology-enhanced learning that is both online and in the classroom– as an effective approach to enhance education. The PTC recommendations are consistent with international initiatives that promote 21^st Century Learning and the use of technologies to support student choice and flexibility.
• The Premier's Technology Council December 2010 Report, A Vision for 21^st Century Education, describes what a educational system might look like should it be transformed.
• One of the driving forces behind the push to infuse 21^st Century Skills into education is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a national organization in the United States. (Note: if any of the links above don't work, blame the MOE, I copied the paragraphs from their site.)

What initially struck me was the number of times the word technology (or form of) was used in the ministry's description of 21st Century Learning? 

I am worried that the MOE sees technology as the saviour of children's education instead of a tool (and a very useful tool) that can be used to enhance learning, in some cases. 

I am worried that 21st century learning, at its core, is all about distance learning (no matter that the kid lives next door to the school) via the internet. 

I am worried that, once again, we are attempting to follow a U.S. model of education (yup, the US system is always super successful).

And, finally I am worried that the drivers behind 21st century learning are not necessarily educators and many have a vested interest in promoting technology (or other business interests . . . not public education):

• Take a look at the 21st century learning founders: self-described as business leaders (The 21st Century Learning Initiative was established in 1995 by a group of English and American businessmen and organizations ...); 
• Take a look at the list of participants in the Premier's Tech Council's (PTC) report "A Vision for 21st Century Education," I see ONE teacher in amongst the handful of superintendents and administrators. The rest are from the MOE and the business community (i.e. tech companies);
• Take a look at the list of "strategic council members" on the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, I see tech companies, for-profit educational organizations, publishers, and the American Assoc. of Librarians thrown in for good measure.

Because really, I don't hold out hope that any of the tech businesses are going to provide, gratis, technology so that all students have the kind of access that the 21st century learning initiatives suggest is needed.

Why is business driving public school education at all? 

Is it because our society values business so much that we look for kids' potential to be workers, instead of their potential to be good citizens and their potential to be life-long learners? 

A friend of mine who is a professor in California recently said to me: "The rationale for modern education is to create competent workers. Thus, they go to businesses for direction. It's what society values."

Any progressive reform for BC public schools should come from educators, both from education faculties and Masters, PhD students and from the ground level, in the trenches, teachers. 

4 Friends

I Support BC Teachers

The BCTF joined this organization in 2003 increasing the number of members to almost half a million. The BCTF shares common goals and values with the B.C. Federation of Labour, and together we are stronger, especially when engaging with Christy Clark's government.


STAND UP FOR BC! includes a clear and succinct petition asking Christy Clark to negotiate fairly with B.C. teachers. Please consider signing the online petition—and while you are at it, ask your family, friends, and neighbours to sign it as well!


You can click the image above, or here and it will take you to the page. It's quick and easy!