![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Testing! Testing!
May. 20th, 2011 04:22 pmHamilton teacher pulled from class over a religiously-charged assignment
My first thought: I've been saying for years that the emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving was going to lead to this kind of conflict in schools. It's in direct opposition to what many parents understand school to be about, and while it's possible to find a lot of good and neutral topics for critical thinking (e.g. Racism is wrong! The Montgomery Bus Boycott was fabulous!) it's also very easy to get in trouble with them. I was wondering when something like this would happen, and how the board would handle it when it did; I'm not terribly surprised that they seem to have thrown him to the wolves.
My second thought: The first article contained the following paradigmatic quote: “This would be appropriate for a university tutorial, not Grade 6." Here we have it, folks: the disconnect between what is being taught and what parents believe is being taught. Though I'm rather surprised he took on this particular topic, the idea of social justice, media, and critical thinking in the classroom are all firmly embedded in our board and our provincial curriculum. Questions of that depth, on subject matter relating more to social justice issues, are routine. It's not a huge stretch to bring views of God and religion into a classroom that has already discussed issues like poverty, globalization, earthquakes, and tsunamis. But the parent either doesn't realize that these questions are routine, or sees this particular version as fundamentally different. That's a big, big disconnect, and a serious threat to critical thinking in Ontario classrooms.
Third: I looked up the song, and I think he asked the wrong question. There are ways to ask a deep question about that song that do not ask a student to justify their belief in God, but he didn't take those. (Or, of course, he could have chosen a different media piece about social justice rather than agnosticism. I'm not terribly comfortable with that choice, but it certainly would have been safer.) I would like to know the context; what is the big idea of this unit? How did the choice of this assignment fit into it?
Fourth: It looks to me like the teacher asked for exactly what he would with any other writing assignment: when you give an opinion, you have to back it up.
That's standard operating procedure, and the student probably knew this very well. Strictly following the rubric for this kind of writing at that level - the rubric I used in grade five, which is fairly standard - would indeed have resulted in a failing grade if the student didn't give reasons at all, because that's what you do in that kind of writing. What I don't know, because it didn't happen, is whether or not the teacher would have taken religious reasons that came from her faith as valid and given her a decent mark. If he wouldn't, in my opinion that would be a far worse offense than asking the question to begin with. I also don't know if that was clearly explained to her.
The other piece of information that is lacking is the student's history with writing assignments. Is this the kind of kid who normally writes pages about well-developed and -supported opinions? Do words have to be dragged out of her one at a time? Context is important and I don't have enough to say if the teacher overstepped. I do think it's telling that many other students and parents are rallying to him.
I've spent years carefully dancing around religious issues in the classroom. I've had a couple of assignments which, taken out of context, could have led to the same result. I don't know how far out of context this assignment has been taken. I hope he gets his job back, and I hope the union is going to fight tooth and nail for him. But I suspect he's not going to use materials like that after this.
My first thought: I've been saying for years that the emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving was going to lead to this kind of conflict in schools. It's in direct opposition to what many parents understand school to be about, and while it's possible to find a lot of good and neutral topics for critical thinking (e.g. Racism is wrong! The Montgomery Bus Boycott was fabulous!) it's also very easy to get in trouble with them. I was wondering when something like this would happen, and how the board would handle it when it did; I'm not terribly surprised that they seem to have thrown him to the wolves.
My second thought: The first article contained the following paradigmatic quote: “This would be appropriate for a university tutorial, not Grade 6." Here we have it, folks: the disconnect between what is being taught and what parents believe is being taught. Though I'm rather surprised he took on this particular topic, the idea of social justice, media, and critical thinking in the classroom are all firmly embedded in our board and our provincial curriculum. Questions of that depth, on subject matter relating more to social justice issues, are routine. It's not a huge stretch to bring views of God and religion into a classroom that has already discussed issues like poverty, globalization, earthquakes, and tsunamis. But the parent either doesn't realize that these questions are routine, or sees this particular version as fundamentally different. That's a big, big disconnect, and a serious threat to critical thinking in Ontario classrooms.
Third: I looked up the song, and I think he asked the wrong question. There are ways to ask a deep question about that song that do not ask a student to justify their belief in God, but he didn't take those. (Or, of course, he could have chosen a different media piece about social justice rather than agnosticism. I'm not terribly comfortable with that choice, but it certainly would have been safer.) I would like to know the context; what is the big idea of this unit? How did the choice of this assignment fit into it?
Fourth: It looks to me like the teacher asked for exactly what he would with any other writing assignment: when you give an opinion, you have to back it up.
That's standard operating procedure, and the student probably knew this very well. Strictly following the rubric for this kind of writing at that level - the rubric I used in grade five, which is fairly standard - would indeed have resulted in a failing grade if the student didn't give reasons at all, because that's what you do in that kind of writing. What I don't know, because it didn't happen, is whether or not the teacher would have taken religious reasons that came from her faith as valid and given her a decent mark. If he wouldn't, in my opinion that would be a far worse offense than asking the question to begin with. I also don't know if that was clearly explained to her.
The other piece of information that is lacking is the student's history with writing assignments. Is this the kind of kid who normally writes pages about well-developed and -supported opinions? Do words have to be dragged out of her one at a time? Context is important and I don't have enough to say if the teacher overstepped. I do think it's telling that many other students and parents are rallying to him.
I've spent years carefully dancing around religious issues in the classroom. I've had a couple of assignments which, taken out of context, could have led to the same result. I don't know how far out of context this assignment has been taken. I hope he gets his job back, and I hope the union is going to fight tooth and nail for him. But I suspect he's not going to use materials like that after this.
