Is it possible to achieve equity through the education system?

[sangreporsangre]

So the Toronto District School Board is making some radical changes. This comes in the wake of an extensive consultation process done by Kathleen Wynne's Liberal provincial government. Wynne has launched an Anti-Racism Directorate as well as the 3 year A Better Way Forward plan. They've also expanded diversity departments and added new commissar type positions in all elements of the government. But we're seeing this have an effect in the school systems as well, and the TDSB is leading the charge. The system is now going to focus all of it's efforts at achieving equity and the curriculum will be taught through a lens of intersectionality.

Here is the draft plan:

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/Community/docs/EETFReport.pdf

It reads like a Tumblr blog. Poor academic performance is due only to "entrenched systems of power and privilege", education needs to be decolonized, Islamophobia is a big enough problem to merit its own special focus (Islamic holidays not being observed is apparently causing problems), etc. There is a high emphasis placed on self-criticism by teachers and on constant diversity training. That "handful of kids on a campus that conservatives whinge about" are now effectively running the education system in this province, as well as other provinces apparently including BC.

Aside from tearing down Eurocentrism, the biggest changes I think are how they are ending streaming in high school English and math, and they are doing away with special education classes. Previously they streamed kids into either applied or academic English or math classes (in my day it was basic, general and advanced) because not all kids learn at the same level. But they've now decided it will be better to have all the kids in the same classes. They are adding some aides into classrooms to help teachers deal with the special ed kids. They wanted to get rid of specialized programs that some schools had like art or music (because too many white kids went to them, seriously) but they had to back down after a huge backlash.

What do you guys think? Is it better to push for equity as opposed to equality? Do you guys think that ending streaming is a good idea, and do they do this where you live? Is it a good idea to get rid of dedicated special ed classes? I'd like to hear from anyone who works in the teaching field. Teachers that I've talked to already think that this will be a disaster. They tend to think that rather than bringing the struggling kids up, it will bring everyone down. I've heard for years, both from teachers I know and from my son, that it's almost impossible for a kid in high school here to fail. I think that all of this will inspire kids to look for excuses rather than inspire them to do better. My daughter is "racialized", but I'm glad that I took her out of the public school system.

 

[sangreporsangre]

To give you an idea of the mindset in Ontario....gotta train those teachers so they know how to keep polyamorous, pansexual elementary school students safe.

 

[Metusalemi]

Why even bother with the school system. Just tell the kids "You're ready for the world, because you awesome just the way you are!"





















Oh, right.

The indoctrination. We must not forget the indoctrination.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To give you an idea of the mindset in Ontario....gotta train those teachers so they know how to keep polyamorous, pansexual elementary school students safe.

That was a joke.

https://www.snopes.com/lggbdtttiqqaapp-lgbt-inclusiveness-training-flyer/

 

[21 Savage]

But they've now decided it will be better to have all the kids in the same classes

I think they do this in Finland and they've had good results from what I know

Maybe @TheGreatA knows more

 

[SammyPops]

School in upper middle and lower upper class neighbourhoods in Toronto are solid, b/c of parent involvement and fund raising. We attract and keep good teachers and poor teachers are flushed out.

School in poor neighbourhoods are fucked and so are their kids.

The 1% go to private schools so no worries there.

TDSB just wasting money on consultants and this and that.

TDSB should be more worried about sex offenders still teaching.

 

[Bald1]

I would like to know the definition of equity they're using, and a better alternative to "Eurocentrism" before I take a verbal dump all over these ideas.

 

[Pupi]

I would like to know the definition of equity they're using, and a better alternative to "Eurocentrism" before I take a verbal dump all over these ideas.

Lol I was just thinking the same.

 

[Swing]

Generally speaking, I don't like the idea of putting kids with extremely varying academic strength into the same classrooms. It is something I'm expected to be able to deal with though. "Differentiating instruction" is the term we use. I'm not good at it, and while I think the premise is dumb, there are some meaningful ways that I could improve as a teacher in terms of being able to focus on students who are struggling in my classes.

I've been shown a few different ways to accomplish differentiated instruction. The main ones are flipping the classroom (this requires students to have internet access at home), or doing things like coming up with a menu of problems to work for an assignment. I don't like either of these. I think one of them marginalizes my role in explaining math and the other lets kids avoid challenging problems. I don't see the sense in letting a kid avoid a type of problem just because it's hard and he isn't particularly strong at math. If the problem wasn't worth doing or testing him on, I wouldn't be showing it to him in the first place. There's another method that makes the most sense to me, and it involves seating students in such a way that the "cognitive load" that comes with explaining a concept is placed on them instead of me.

There's a lot of merit to that idea, but you have to be able to keep them on task and motivate them to help each other. It takes a lot of relationship building and a good deal of charisma, far more than I think it takes to run a traditional classroom. These are areas I consider myself to be weak in. Right now I run a compromise where I seat them in pairs so they can help each other out, and I force them--so much as I'm able--to contribute to my lectures. It's made some of my evaluations looks good, but I'm not sure how much it benefits the kids in the end.

 

[panamaican]

I skimmed the .pdf, spending most of my time on the introduction re: rationale, etc. and the recommendations but I did skim the rest.

I guess I'm not sure what part of it you're specifically taking exception to? It doesn't seem to say anything that is about the academics themselves and is more about the school environment itself.

If the question is whether or not the school should be doing anything about the environment, I'd say that's important. If you want people to buy into the larger ethos of your nation, you need to make sure they feel included. Grease the wheels so to speak: "We show you that we care about your needs so that you will care about ours." I didn't see the part about music classes but I only skimmed the document so that's not saying much. They appear to cite research behind some of their decisions so something is driving some of the decisions.

That brings me back to my initial uncertainty - what part of it you're specifically taking exception to? That they're doing it at all, how they're making their decisions, or the ultimate recommendations themselves?

 

[panamaican]

Generally speaking, I don't like the idea of putting kids with extremely varying academic strength into the same classrooms. It is something I'm expected to be able to deal with though. "Differentiating instruction" is the term we use. I'm not good at it, and while I think the premise is dumb, there are some meaningful ways that I could improve as a teacher in terms of being able to focus on students who are struggling in my classes.

I've been shown a few different ways to accomplish differentiated instruction. The main ones are flipping the classroom (this requires students to have internet access at home), or doing things like coming up with a menu of problems to work for an assignment. I don't like either of these. I think one of them marginalizes my role in explaining math and the other lets kids avoid challenging problems. I don't see the sense in letting a kid avoid a type of problem just because it's hard and he isn't particularly strong at math. If the problem wasn't worth doing or testing him on, I wouldn't be showing it to him in the first place. There's another method that makes the most sense to me, and it involves seating students in such a way that the "cognitive load" that comes with explaining a concept is placed on them instead of me.

There's a lot of merit to that idea, but you have to be able to keep them on task and motivate them to help each other. It takes a lot of relationship building and a good deal of charisma, far more than I think it takes to run a traditional classroom. These are areas I consider myself to be weak in. Right now I run a compromise where I seat them in pairs so they can help each other out, and I force them--so much as I'm able--to contribute to my lectures. It's made some of my evaluations looks good, but I'm not sure how much it benefits the kids in the end.

Interestingly, I just had a conversation last night with a teacher about differentiated instruction and she felt positively about it but that it put significantly more burden on the teacher in order to make it work. She echoed the idea that the wider the range of abilities in the classroom, the difficult it was to implement.

However, she also noted that she started teaching at a public school, she's at an expensive independent school now and the difference in school resources combined with smaller classrooms makes things possible that she couldn't do at the public school.

 

[sangreporsangre]

That was a joke.

https://www.snopes.com/lggbdtttiqqaapp-lgbt-inclusiveness-training-flyer/

Intersting, I hadn't seen that. Not sure I buy it though, she may have made that up after the fact. Either way they really push the LGBTQ stuff here in the schools in a big way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Intersting, I hadn't seen that. Not sure I buy it though, she may have made that up after the fact. Either way they really push the LGBTQ stuff here in the schools in a big way.

I don't doubt that there is a real push, but come on, you had to see that flier and think it was likely a hoax or joke.

 

[snakedafunky]

I think they do this in Finland and they've had good results from what I know

Maybe @TheGreatA knows more

I can't comment on Finland. But we have something similar in Germany now where they tried to include mentally disabled in a regular school.
IMO it's not working well mostly because the school system in my state is not set up like that. We have special schools for the disabled people.
So regular schools don't have the manpower, budget or facilities to handle those mentals.

That's beside the issue that ordinary students are held back. But I have to say in Germany this is not so much driven by the SJW.
But somewhat by parents that to a certain degree don't accept their children have to go to a special school.
So its a bit of an uncomfortable issue.
But in general, I would say it's not working.

 

[SaiWa]

Intersting, I hadn't seen that. Not sure I buy it though, she may have made that up after the fact. Either way they really push the LGBTQ stuff here in the schools in a big way.

just means you're gullible and willing to believe anything that falls within your line of thinking without checking sources...

 

[sangreporsangre]

I skimmed the .pdf, spending most of my time on the introduction re: rationale, etc. and the recommendations but I did skim the rest.

I guess I'm not sure what part of it you're specifically taking exception to? It doesn't seem to say anything that is about the academics themselves and is more about the school environment itself.

If the question is whether or not the school should be doing anything about the environment, I'd say that's important. If you want people to buy into the larger ethos of your nation, you need to make sure they feel included. Grease the wheels so to speak: "We show you that we care about your needs so that you will care about ours." I didn't see the part about music classes but I only skimmed the document so that's not saying much. They appear to cite research behind some of their decisions so something is driving some of the decisions.

That brings me back to my initial uncertainty - what part of it you're specifically taking exception to? That they're doing it at all, how they're making their decisions, or the ultimate recommendations themselves?

I guess my major problem with it is how intersectionality has basically become like a state religion. The entire school system is now underpinned by a pseudo-religious ideology. I definitely don't like how use our tax dollars to hire all these consultants for constant diversity training and so forth. As regards the de-streaming and the ending of special ed programs, I'm not sure how I feel about those which is why I was asking for opinions and if anyone has experience with this. The special ed one I'm really skeptical about if it's a good idea or not - won't these kids benefit from a more specialized environment? My step-sister teaches special ed and has told me about the kinds of outbursts and disruptions which are a daily event in her classrooms. I'm not sure that it will be the best idea to fully integrate all those kids into to the main classrooms. The de-streaming thing I'm not so sure of.

 

[sangreporsangre]

I don't doubt that there is a real push, but come on, you had to see that flier and think it was likely a hoax or joke.

Honestly after some of the stuff my kids have told me about their schools in this province, nothing shocks me. After my son told me that a girl went on stage at the Pride assembly, introduced by drag queens as the newest member of the rainbow family, to come out as genderqueer to a roaring applause, I found that flier very easy to take seriously.

 

[Swing]

Interestingly, I just had a conversation last night with a teacher about differentiated instruction and she felt positively about it but that it put significantly more burden on the teacher in order to make it work. She echoed the idea that the wider the range of abilities in the classroom, the difficult it was to implement.

However, she also noted that she started teaching at a public school, she's at an expensive independent school now and the difference in school resources combined with smaller classrooms makes things possible that she couldn't do at the public school.

That sounds right. The class size is the biggest factor, I think. Obviously differentiating between 10-15 students will be easier than 20-25 and so on. Part of my reticence is due to how I wouldn't care for it as a student myself. I liked a standard lecture format just fine, and anything beyond someone telling me how things work always seemed like it was taking the roundabout way of giving me information (the exception being lab classes where the whole point is to be hands on). I figured that out about myself the first year though, and I do the best I can not to let my own preferences hold back how I teach.

 

[sangreporsangre]

just means you're gullible and willing to believe anything that falls within your line of thinking without checking sources...

See the post above. Besides, it's not like it was a hoax made up by some right-wing douches. It's a flier that the ETFO really made for the event, just after it went viral online and the woman was contacted she said that the acronym was done over the top on purpose.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Generally speaking, I don't like the idea of putting kids with extremely varying academic strength into the same classrooms. It is something I'm expected to be able to deal with though. "Differentiating instruction" is the term we use. I'm not good at it, and while I think the premise is dumb, there are some meaningful ways that I could improve as a teacher in terms of being able to focus on students who are struggling in my classes.

I've been shown a few different ways to accomplish differentiated instruction. The main ones are flipping the classroom (this requires students to have internet access at home), or doing things like coming up with a menu of problems to work for an assignment. I don't like either of these. I think one of them marginalizes my role in explaining math and the other lets kids avoid challenging problems. I don't see the sense in letting a kid avoid a type of problem just because it's hard and he isn't particularly strong at math. If the problem wasn't worth doing or testing him on, I wouldn't be showing it to him in the first place. There's another method that makes the most sense to me, and it involves seating students in such a way that the "cognitive load" that comes with explaining a concept is placed on them instead of me.

There's a lot of merit to that idea, but you have to be able to keep them on task and motivate them to help each other. It takes a lot of relationship building and a good deal of charisma, far more than I think it takes to run a traditional classroom. These are areas I consider myself to be weak in. Right now I run a compromise where I seat them in pairs so they can help each other out, and I force them--so much as I'm able--to contribute to my lectures. It's made some of my evaluations looks good, but I'm not sure how much it benefits the kids in the end.

So have you taught under both paradigms, streaming and de-streaming? If so, did you notice a big difference in the levels of academic success overall for the kids? I agree with you about that "menu of problems" deal, I don't like the sound of that.