|
Introduction
This essay responds to a column by a homosexual activist
published in the magazine of the British Columbia Teachers’
Federation.
Writing in Teacher Newsmagazine in the
garb of a "guardian of public education,"
Murray Corren urges his colleagues to assert their "professional
autonomy" and "fend off" parents who
refuse to allow their children to participate in classes
for reasons of conscience or religion. He asks, “Whose
worldview should we privilege and whose should we censor?
Who should decide what gets taught and what doesn’t?”1
For an answer to this question, one
has only to look at Mr. Corren's private agreement with
the provincial Ministry of Education. It awards him
and Peter Corren privileged status in the development
of public education policy and curriculum.2
The agreement was signed secretly, includes a provision
for continuing secrecy,3 and was kept secret
for over a month after it was signed.4 The
first part of the agreement is intended to prevent objecting
parents from removing their children from Kindergarten
to Grade 12 classes when "queer-positive"
lessons are taught.5
Clearly, it is Mr. Corren’s worldview
that is privileged. Those who disagree with it will
be censored, and a coterie of ‘professionals’
who share his views will decide what gets taught.
For example, the Ministry of Education
called an invitation-only meeting to discuss the proposed
grade 12 ‘social justice’ elective with the
Correns and others deemed worthy of consultation, like
the BCTF and the SPCA.6 Representatives of
the province’s religious traditions were not invited;
groups opposed to the Corren agreement and concerned
about curriculum revisions were deliberately excluded.
The President of the BC Civil Liberties Association
- one of the select invitees - sniffed that such groups
“should not be contributing to any dialogue on
education reform."7
Everyone is equal in public education,
it seems, but some are more equal than others.
In the light of all of this, it is tempting,
as Mr. Corren parades in his robes of office as a “guardian
of public education,” to observe that the emperor
has no clothes. But one does not do so. Instead, one
humours his claim to the guardian of public education,
on the condition that he admits that he shares the office
with fellow citizens - including those who disagree
with him. But his assumption of guardianship over other
people’s children warrants a different response.
The Minister of Education is not the
source of parental authority, nor is a teaching degree
or professional certification the source of a teacher's
authority as it relates to the educational and moral
formation of students entrusted to them. Quite the reverse:
the authority of the Minister, teachers and administrators
with respect to students is delegated to them by parents,
a delegation reflected in the traditional statement
that teachers act in loco parentis.
Parents do not surrender their authority
to the state, to a union, to a profession or to special
interest activists when they entrust their children
to a public school system. They remain the primary educators
of their children, and this primacy is not only in order
of time and importance, but in order of authority, regardless
of religious affiliation. It cannot be suppressed by
the Corren’s private agreement with the government,
nor by fiat of the Ministry of Education.
Moreover, citizens do not surrender
freedom of conscience, religion, thought and belief
as a condition of attending a public school. No direction
from the Ministry of Education and no private agreements
with special interest activists can relieve teachers,
administrators and school districts of their responsibility
to accommodate these fundamental freedoms. Were that
the case, it would give them the power to override the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a power which has been
granted only to parliament and provincial legislatures.
There is also the issue of international agreements,
to which Canada is a signatory.8
Of course, it can be awkward to apply
these principles in practice. Mr. Corren asks if the
“sensitivities” of one parent should determine
what novels are used in a public school classroom. Clearly
not: no more than Mr. Corren’s sensitivities should
force curriculum revisions on the entire public school
system. If sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,
his private contract with the government is markedly
inconsistent with his scornful rhetoric about the sensitivities
and religious beliefs of “a small segment of the
parent population.”
Once more, everyone is equal in public
education, but some are more equal than others.
Still, the question remains. How should
a teacher respond if parents refuse to allow their children
to participate in lessons or classes “mandated”
by the curriculum?
Mr. Corren urges his colleagues to ”take a stand”
and invite the objectors to avail themselves of “other
educational options,” ignoring the fact that home-schooling
is unrealistic for many families, and other alternatives
may be unavailable. This could be remedied by increasing
support for charter and independent schools so that
parents in such situations would have a real choice,
but, in the meantime, his solution remains unsatisfactory.
More to the point, Mr. Corren’s
answer - “my-way-or-the-highway” - is a wrong
answer that comes of asking the wrong questions. His
questions do not lead to an enlightened response to
the dilemma posed by profoundly divergent worldviews
reflected in the classroom. Rather, one should ask how
a state educational system can respect differences among
families with diverse moral and religious outlooks while
developing broadly acceptable curriculum standards.
That different parents have different
moral or religious outlooks does not make it impossible
for a state educational system to respect those differences
while developing broadly acceptable curriculum standards.
If, despite appropriate consultation, the standards
are unacceptable to some parents, they can be accommodated
by acknowledging their authority to withdraw their children
from the objectionable lessons or classes. Alternatively,
discussion between the parents concerned and school
authorities may yield other acceptable solutions. What
Mr. Corren thinks of their solutions is unimportant.
The accommodation of religious and conscientious
conviction is not merely possible; it is a legal obligation
that binds teachers and school districts to the point
of undue hardship. Mr. Corren's call to teachers to
"take a stand" against the accommodation of
religious beliefs is, arguably, a statement of an intention
to discriminate, something forbidden by Section 7(1)a
of the BC Human Rights Code. So, for that matter, is
the Ministry’s ‘clarified’ Alternative
Delivery Policy and the letter from the Deputy Minister
of Education quoted by Mr. Corren. Both of these, by
the way, are products of his private agreement with
the government.9 An uninformed reader would
be unaware of this, since Teacher Newsmagazine does
not follow the practice of professional journals that
require disclosure of an author’s ‘competing
interests.’
Turning to Mr. Corren’s assertion
(backed by the Deputy Minister) that students from objecting
families “are not exempted from meeting the prescribed
learning outcomes,” it is time to introduce the
elephant in the room.
It is almost unheard of for students
in Kindergarten to Grade 8 in British Columbia to be
"held back" (fail a grade) because they have
not met prescribed learning outcomes. Whether or not
they meet curriculum standards for reading, writing,
mathematics, socials, or any other subject, students
pass from one grade to the next until the end of Grade
8. Only in Grade 9 are students required to meet a minimum
standard in order to pass a subject, and, even then,
a mark of 50% is all that is needed. This may or may
not reflect an achievement of half the learning outcomes,
but it does indicate that something substantially less
than the full complement is acceptable. Further: students
in British Columbia are not suspended or expelled from
school for failing to do assignments or participate
in a class activity.10
Thus, if a Kindergarten to Grade 8 student
does not meet a prescribed outcome related to Mr. Corren’s
“queer-positive” curriculum for reasons of
conscience or religion, that would not justify holding
the student back or imposing other penalties for non-compliance,
since that is not done in any other subject. Similarly,
there would be no justification for failing or penalizing
a Grade 9 to 12 student in similar circumstances who
was otherwise meeting the course standard.
To sum up: Mr. Corren’s appeal
to his colleagues to refuse to accommodate freedom of
conscience, religion, thought, opinion and belief is
an invitation to engage in wrongful discrimination that
is likely to embroil them in confrontation and even
litigation, all in the service of his personal agenda
and his private contract with the government. It is
inconsistent with respect for authentic pluralism in
a liberal democracy, and it is not in the best interests
of students, parents or teachers.
Notes:
1. Corren, Murray, “A
censor? Who, me?" ” Teacher Newsmagazine
Volume 19, Number 4, January/February 2007 Accessed
2007-01-31.
2. Settlement
Agreement between Murray Corren and Peter Corren (Complainants)
and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of
British Columbia, as Represented by the Ministry of
Education (Respondent), 28 April, 2006. Hereinafter,
“The Agreement”
3. “Subject to any public statement
made pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement, anything
said by a participant or any information or documents
exchanged during any meetings or discussions covered
by this Agreement are confidential, except to the extent
to which the parties agree, or may be required by law.”
Article 9, The
Agreement.
4. "The parties will attempt to
negotiate a mutually agreeable public statement about
the terms of resolution of the complaints. If such agreement
cannot be reached on or before May 31, 2006, the parties
may issue their own respective public statements. The
parties further agree that they will not publicly discuss
the settlement of the complaint, including the terms
of settlement, prior to May 31, 2006." Article
5, The
Agreement.
5. “Ultimately, the most frequent
reason for parents to opt their children out of classes
had to do with any discussion of sexual orientation
and gender identity and same-sex parents,” Murray
Corren said. “We felt it was extremely important
for the ministry to delineate exactly where this policy
applies and where it doesn’t.” Smith, Charlie,
"Correns
unfazed by right-wing backlash." Georgia
Straight, 9 November, 2006. Accessed 2007-01-29.
"There's no point in us making
the curriculum more queer-positive if people can take
their kids out." Peter Corren, quoted in Luymes,
Glenda, "Hooky touted for anti-gay parents: Trustee
claims Education Ministry policy on opting out takes
away 'freedom'". The Province, 12 September 12,
2006
6. Steffenhagen, Janet, “Activist
wants animal rights taught in B.C. schools: 'Speciesism'
is a prejudice too, says humane society.” Vancouver
Sun, 25 September, 2006
7. Hasiuk, Mark, “Concerned Parents
accuse ministry of discrimination.” The Vancouver
Courier, 4 October, 2006
8. “Parents have a prior right
to choose the kind of education thatshould be given
their children.” (From Article 26 - United Nations,
Universal Declaration on Human Rights – 1948).
“The best interests of the child shall be the guiding
principle of those responsible for his education and
guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place
with his parents.”(From the United Nations Declaration
of the Rights of the Child, Principle 7)
9. “The Respondent [Ministry of
Education] will amend the Policy to state expressly
that the Policy applies to Health and Career Education
K-7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning
10 and not to any other IRPs; and that it applies only
to the Health curriculum organizer of each of these
three IRPs and to no other curriclum organizers. The
Respondent will draft a letter to all public School
Board Chairs and school district Superintendents (“Letter”)
that will be copied to the BC School Trustees Association,
BC School Superintendents Association, BC Principals’
and Vice-Principals’ Association, BC Teachers’
Federation and the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory
Councils that will clarify the true nature and limited
reach of the Policy. The Respondent will provide the
amended draft Policy and the draft letter to the Complainants
[the Corrrens] for their review on or before July 15,
2006. The Complainants will provide their comments on
the . . . Policy and . . . Letter on or before August
1, 2006. The Respondent will finalize the wording of
the Policy and the Letter, and will implement the Policy
and send out the Letter, with copies of each to the
Complainants, on or before September 15, 2006.”
Article 1B, The
Agreement.
10. The statement reflects the usual
practice. It is contrary to Ministry of Education policy
to have students repeat a year before Grade 4. “In
Grades 4 to 12, the decision for a student to advance
or repeat a grade or course will be made in the best
interest of that student by the teachers, parents and
the school principal. In making placement decisions,
those involved should consider the available research,
the age of the student, and the intervention support
available.” Ministry
of Education, K-12 Education Plan: Placement
Accessed 2007-01-03. See also Ministry
of Education, K-12 Education Plan: Letter Grades and
Symbols Accessed 2007-01-03; Provincial
Letter Grades Order Accessed 2007-01-03; BC
Ministry of Education, Special Program Branch, Focus
on Suspension: A Resource for Schools (1999)
Accessed 2007-02-03.
The practice may explain an observation
made by Project Literacy in Victoria, BC. Many of their
clients report “that they have reached a grade
level in school that is significantly higher than their
skill set actually reflects.” One young man who
had reached Grade 9 or 10 had about a Grade 4 reading
level, and he was unable to write in cursive script;
he could only print. In its presentation to a legislative
committee, Project Literacy cited a study indicating
that “about 20% of Canadians have lower literacy
skills than their education level might indicate.”
Project Literacy Victoria, Presentation
to the Select Standing Committee on Education,
Victoria, BC (26 April, 2006) Accessed 2007-02-07.
|
