On Tuesday May 6, 2014, the “Amazing E. Wayne”—renowned mystic, soothsayer, prophet, knower of things about BC politics—wrote the following about BC Minister of Education Peter Fassbender’s announcement of an investigation into the bizarre story of Rick Davis, the BC Ministry of Education official who commissioned a $16,000 report on Finnish teacher education from a 19-year-old high school graduate he met when she as deejaying at a wedding:
I’m doubtful we’ll get any real insights into this bizarre episode, at least in the short term, because Education Minister Peter Fassbender indicated that the investigation would focus on contract “procedures” rather than substance of the decision making process.
As predicted the Fassbender investigation found that everything is hunky-dory in the Ministry. Read all about it here.
Fassbender’s, technical investigation into procedures of doling out single-source contracts, misses the larger point, which is the misguided judgment of education ministry staff in this case, particularly Rick Davis. Opting to CYA politically reinforces the point I have been hammering on since this imbroglio came to light last September, that is, the BC Ministry of Education actions demonstrate a profound lack of respect for the teaching profession, teacher education, and educational research in general.
The news cycle for the “BC Ministry of Education official commissions a $16,000 education report from a 19-year-old high school graduate he met at a wedding” got extended one more day, catching the attention of folks at the centre of the universe.
The National Post article caught the attention of the folks at CBC Radio and as a result I did a short interview with Carol Off on “As It Happens” this afternoon. You can listen to a podcast of the show here, my bits start just after the 15:00 mark, but you should listen to the entire show because there are some wonderful clips, stories, and quotes from and about Farley Mowat throughout; and they close this episode with Ronnie Hawkin’s “Mary Lou”.
The British Columbia Minister of Education has announced an investigation into the research contracts that funded a teenager’s “study” of teacher education programs at the University of Victoria and University of Helsinki.
This story has been floating around since last fall, but the Ministry has had nothing to say about these sole-source research contracts until the Canadian Taxpayers Federation of BC obtained and published the final report. A story by Times Colonist reporter Amy Smart about the research contracts and the student’s report, was also a big nudge (see below).
[Following the initial story about the government funded teen researcher by Tracy Sherlock in the Vancouver Sun last September, I’ve written about the situation on WTBHNN and Janet Steffenhagen has covered it on her blog for the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. But it was Jordan Bateman and the CTF‘s FOI activity that finally forced the Ministry to acknowledge there is at least the appearance of problem here.]
CBC News Vancouver ran the story this evening, watch their report here:
I’m doubtful we’ll get any real insights into this bizarre episode, at least in the short term, because Education Minister Peter Fassbender indicated that the investigation would focus on contract “procedures” rather than substance of the decision making process. Rick Davis, the Ministry’s “superintendent of achievement,” is the official who gave the contracts to Anjali Vyas, who at the time was a recent high school grad and deejay, she is now an undergraduate student at UBC.
Education Minister Peter Fassbender says he is investigating how $16,000 in public funds were paid to a teenage researcher on the already well-researched topic of Finnish teacher education.
Stelly’s Secondary School graduate Anjaly Vyas travelled to Finland in 2013 to interview students about teacher education. She also interviewed students at the University of Victoria and wrote a 14-page report of her findings.
Superintendent of achievement Rick Davis signed two contracts for her work — one in 2012 for $8,000 and another in 2013 for “up to $8,000.” In documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation through a freedom of information request, he said Vyas offered “student eyes” on teacher education.
“I think this young lady, of course, was passionate about education and I really celebrate her enthusiasm. But this isn’t really about her, it’s about our procedures,” Fassbender said Tuesday.
“I’ve spoken with the deputy and we’re reviewing our procedures on contracts like this.”
Fassbender said the contracts are concerning, but also called the awarding process “open and transparent,” since all ministry contracts are posted monthly.
Sole-source contracts under a certain threshold can be awarded without contest, but they are traditionally signed off by the deputy minister, he said.
“The current deputy was not the one who signed this particular contract, that’s why we’re reviewing it,” Fassbender said.
“If there are procedures we need to change, we will definitely look at that.”
James Gorman was deputy education minister from 2008 to October 2013, when Rob Wood replaced him.
The CTF filed the Freedom of Information requests that produced 115 pages of background documents and the Vyas report.
Bateman called the contracts “dubious.”
“There’s a difference between gleaning student input and spending $16,000 to send a 19-year-old to Finland on very flimsy pretenses,” he said.
The ministry didn’t get much for its money, Bateman said. At 14 pages, the “thin” student paper released Monday essentially cost taxpayers $1,122.81 per page.
The first $8,000 contract was signed in 2012, while a second one for “up to $8,000” was signed in 2013.
Bateman filed a freedom of information request after reading a story in the Vancouver Sun celebrating Vyas’s achievements. In the story, she said she met Davis when she was DJ-ing at a wedding.
“There’s something weird about the story that just didn’t sit right,” Bateman said. “They hit it off and then she ends up with this $8,000 contract to go to Finland and study, frankly, the most-studied educational system in the world.”
Davis met Vyas “coincidentally” at her teacher Gord Ritchie’s wedding, the ministry said. But Ritchie had already alerted Davis to Vyas’s research interests and they later arranged a formal meeting.
I told Smart that while Vyas seemed “very bright and motivated,” the project was an insult to education professionals.
“At the most basic level, I think giving a sole-source contract to a teenager to study UVic’s teacher education program and to travel to Finland, shows that the ministry doesn’t really take teacher education seriously.”
“I wonder if the Health Ministry would send a teenager to Finland to study their professional medical preparation.”
Vyas apparently didn’t respond to reporters’ requests for interviews, but she submitted a video statement to CBC News Vancouver defending her project.
I agree with Minister Fassbender that Vyas and her work should not be the primary focus here. As I mentioned in previous posts, I’m not interested in picking apart the report or making judgments about her work. That’s really beside the point.
What is at issue is the agenda of the Ministry.
Why create a situation any thoughtful person could easily predict had the potential to blow up in the faces of everyone involved?
Rick Davis and the Ministry are responsible for putting Vyas in an awkward position. Vyas shouldn’t be a scapegoat. And, Davis and the Ministry should be held accountable, not just for the money spent, but the process and product of government decision-making as well as their frivolous approach to teacher education.
When is Davis going to step up and offer a defence of his actions?
The one thing he could really learn from Vyas is having the courage to defend his own work. Would that be worth $16,000.00?
Jordan Bateman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation of British Columbia, has been exploring the question of why the BC Ministry of Education would finance a teenager to conduct research on teacher education in Finland. Through Freedom of Information requests the CFA collected and published 115 pages of communications among Rick Davis, Anjali Vyas, the high school grad who was funded to travel to Finland and write a report on teacher education, and other Ministry employees.
These documents raise a number of questions about how the Ministry, and particularly “superintendent of achievement” Rick Davis makes decisions about doling out single source research contracts. These documents also represent events in ways that are inconsistency with the initial media reports about genesis of this project. (Read my previous posts on the subject here, here, and here.
One thing that has been missing is Vyas’ final report to the Ministry. Bateman posted the report on the CTF website today.
Or not, because as you might expect given the circumstances, there are no insights to be found in the report. Not even the “through a student’s eyes” perspective that Davis said was the point of the project. Instead, the report is a collection of general statements, with little or no data to illustrate or support the claims made. For example, there is exactly one quote from interviews conducted in Finland to go with one quote from a UVic student. There are a few references to and quotes from published works, but no reference list. But I’m not really interested in picking apart the report or judging the author.
Rather, my question is what was Rick Davis and the BC Ministry of Education expecting? Did Davis really believe that funding a 10 month “study” of teacher education conducted by a high school grad would produce insights into the professional preparation of teachers?
I’m at a loss to understand the rationale behind this debacle. Ignorance? Disrespect? A combo platter, with arrogance on the side?
If it’s the first—that is, if the person in the role of “superintendent of achievement” for the province really did believe this was a good use of public funds and could produce useful insights into teacher education—then I respectfully suggest he shouldn’t have that job.
There’s no arguing that Davis and the BC Ministry of Education have, by their actions in this case, illustrated a profound disrespect for teacher education and educational research in general. Perhaps merely an extension of the BC Liberals ongoing disrespect for professional educators.
Washington State Kappan: Winter 2015 Call For Manuscripts
Due September 15, 2014
Social Justice in Education: Diversity, Equity, Citizenship
Social justice in education remains crucial to American society and the development of diverse and well-educated citizenry. From issues such as civics and immigrant youth to equity and the transition from high school to college, what it means to support and advocate for social justice in classrooms, schools, communities, and the policy arena is much more than adding statements of tolerance to inherently inequitable systems and structures.
As Sensoy and DiAngelo assert, “Social justice education is not about serving the interests of political correctness. Every single measure of disparity in education is tied to group position — target vs. dominant. Special education and discipline referrals; math, science, and reading literacies; graduation and dropout/push-out rates; test scores, all of what is known as ‘the achievement gap’ are tied to race, class, and gender. This disparity is real. And to ameliorate such disparities and offer meaningful leadership in school contexts at all levels, we must attend to the real, to the concrete and active dimensions — not simply the slogans — of social justice” (2009, p. 348-350).
We invite articles that serve as a catalyst for exploring the real, concrete, active dimensions of social justice from a variety of perspectives. Those interested in submitting a manuscript may want to consider the following questions:
In what ways are districts and schools working to support diverse student populations to gain access to programs and to succeed academically?
How might issues of social justice be meaningfully integrated with university teacher education programs?
What are examples of how social justice education is being implemented through instruction at the classroom level?
·In what ways are ESDs facilitating or supporting social justice initiatives, such as civics education and community-based learning, statewide?
What connections can be made between current high-stakes assessment policies and social justice initiatives?
What does social justice mean to students, parents, or school communities?
Kumar is a professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of South Asia, in Delhi. He blogs here and is also part of the editorial collective at Radical Notes.
Praise for the volume:
The book presents a set of papers that illuminate in profound ways how the wide-angle historical frames provided by Marxist analysis facilitate our understanding of the details embedded in national and more local educational contexts. Neoliberalism attacks human dignity. The consequences of social, economic, and educational policies that exacerbate inequality, magnify exploitation, and undermine personal and social freedoms are clearly analyzed by each of the contributors. The circumstances are dire and readers will most certainly be outraged as they learn how neoliberal policies and practices reduce the process of education to a commodity and teachers and learners to elements in formula for the relentless production of profit. This volume presents a clear and compelling analysis of how neoliberal thought and practice has transformed education at the policy level in India and in the process distorted the official aims of education as well as social relations among teachers and learners. Most importantly, however, these chapters provide insights into how we might channel our rage against neoliberal capitalist mechanisms into the creation of new visions of resistance to educational practices that privilege profits over people. – E. Wayne Ross, University of British Columbia, Canada
Editor Ravi Kumar has assembled the finest scholarship to investigate key questions in regard to the relationship of the development of modern capitalism, its connections to empire, the role of the state, and the resulting impact on education. The essays within go to the core: what is valued as “knowledge” now? Who shall schools serve? Indeed: Why have school? The critical reader will find new questions, and profound answers. – Rich Gibson, Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University, USA
Critical Education has just published its latest issue at http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled. We invite you to review the Table of Contents below and then visit our web site to read articles and items of interest.
While visiting the Critical Education web site please register to receive email alerts on future publication or sign up to be a manuscript reviewer. Also consider submitting a manuscript for considerations (see Information for Authors).
The Cuban Literacy Campaign at 50: Formal and Tacit Learning in Revolutionary Education
Arlo Kempf
Abstract
December 22, 2011, marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the Cuban Literacy Campaign, an initiative that dramatically increased literacy rates across the island and consolidated the presence of the revolutionary government. While Cuban schools are widely celebrated, a paucity of recent scholarship persists treating the structure and tenets, as well as the formal and tacit content of Cuban education. Beginning with an analysis of the political content of the literacy campaign, this article reviews the structure and content of Cuban education with a focus on the role of ideology. While numerous scholars have demonstrated the prescriptive and reproductive function of schooling Euro-American contexts, little comparative international work has treated the interfunction of schooling and ideology in the Global South. This article locates the literacy campaign as the formal genesis of contemporary Cuban ideology. Indeed the literacy campaign was the beginning of a discursive relationship that continues today.
Keywords
Adult Education; Cuban Education; the Cuban Literacy Campaign; Schooling; Ideology; Marxism; Global South
We hear a lot of talk, recently, about America’s deepening “creativity crisis” (Seargeant Richardson, 2011) and what schools can do to resolve it. To whatever extent such a crisis is real (Schrage, 2010), we should not expect schools to be part of the solution. From its inception, compulsory schooling in the United States has always served the values of our nation’s dominant institutions and the interests of the social, political, and economic elites who own, control, and benefit most from the social arrangements and relations engendered by those institutions. To organize and operate a set of institutions dedicated to promoting critical and creative thought would run counter to those dominant values and interests by developing the cognitive habits among the population that could render them less susceptible to easy government and corporate manipulation. Therefore, so long as those values and interests remain dominant within the larger society, they will remain dominant within schools, thereby limiting the extent to which schools will ever nurture creativity and critical reflection.
Guest Editors:
Mark Stern, Colgate University
Amy Brown, University of Pennsylvania
Khuram Hussain, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
I can tell you with confidence, one year later [from the Measure of Progress test boycott in Seattle schools], I know where our actions will lead: to the formation of a truly mass civil rights movement composed of parents, teachers, educational support staff, students, administrators, and community members who want to end high-stakes standardized testing and reclaim public education from corporate reformers.—Jesse Hagopian, History Teacher and Black Student Union Adviser at Garfield High School, Seattle
As many of us have documented in our scholarly work, the past five years have witnessed a full-fledged attack on public school teachers and their unions. With backing from Wall Street and venture philanthropists, the public imaginary has been saturated with images and rhetoric decrying teachers as the impediments to ‘real’ change in K-12 education. Docu-dramas like Waiting For ‘Superman,’ news stories like Steve Brill’s, “The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand,” in The New York Times Magazine and high profile rhetoric like Michelle Rhee’s mantra that students, not adults, need to be “put first” in education reform, all point to this reality: teachers face an orchestrated, billion dollar assault on their professional status, their knowledge, and their abilities to facilitate dialogical spaces in classrooms. This assault has materialized and been compounded by an austerity environment that is characterized by waning federal support and a narrow corporate agenda. Tens of thousands of teachers have suffered job loss, while thousands more fear the same.
Far from being silent, teachers are putting up a fight. From the strike in Chicago, to grassroots mobilizing to wrest control of the United Federation of Teachers in New York, to public messaging campaigns in Philadelphia and boycotts in Seattle, teachers and their local allies are organizing, agitating and confronting school reform in the name of saving public education. In collaboration with parents, community activists, school staff, students, and administrators, teacher are naming various structures of oppression and working to reclaim the conversation and restore a sense of self-determination to their personal, professional, and civic lives.
This special issue of Workplace calls for proposals to document the resistance of teachers in the United States, Canada, and globally. Though much has been written about the plight of teachers under neoliberal draconianism, the reparative scholarship on teachers’ educating, organizing, and agitating is less abundant. This special issue is solely dedicated to mapping instances of resistance in hopes of serving as both resource and inspiration for the growing movement.
This issue will have three sections, with three different formats for scholarship/media. Examples might include:
I. Critical Research Papers (4000-6000 words)
Qualitative/ethnographic work documenting the process of teachers coming to critical consciousness.
Critical historiographies linking trajectories of political activism of teachers/unions across time and place.
Documenting and theorizing teacher praxis—protests, community education campaigns, critical agency in the classroom.
Critical examinations of how teachers, in specific locales, are drawing on and enacting critical theories of resistance (Feminist, Politics of Love/Caring/Cariño, Black Radical Traditions, Mother’s Movements, and so on).
II. Portraits of Resistance
Autobiographical sketches from the ground. (~2000 words)
Alternative/Artistic representations/Documentations of Refusal (poetry, visual art, photography, soundscapes)
III. Analysis and Synthesis of Various Media
Critical book, blog, art, periodical, music, movie reviews. (1500-2000 words)
400-word abstracts should be sent to Mark Stern (mstern@colgate.edu) by April 15, 2014. Please include name, affiliation, and a very brief (3-4 sentences) professional biography.
Notifications of acceptance will be sent out by May 15. Final drafts will be due October 1, 2014. Please note that having your proposal accepted does not guarantee publication. All final drafts will go through peer-review process. Authors will be notified of acceptance for publication by November 1.
The main aim of the conference is to facilitate scientific dialogue around the theme of social justice and diversity in connection to teacher education in a wide sense through questions and answers offered by solid research studies. Traditional conferences often give very limited place for real dialogue and sharing around findings and problems. However, research is always a social activity too, and it needs to be discussed, shared and reflected in research communities. Scientific activities might also better contribute to the transformation and development of societies and communities if knowledge coming from research is constructed and reflected together by gathering findings, questions and possible answers. In order to promote dialogue, discussion and common knowledge construction, the sections of the conference will be organized in accordance with this principle, and the whole conference will be characterized bythis atmosphere of sharing.
The conference welcomes any kind of theoretical, empirical or methodological research papers related to the conference theme from different disciplines, approaches and research traditions. Participatory, collaborative or practitioner research studies are particularly welcome as well as policy analysis.
Important dates:
EXTENDED deadline for submission of abstracts: 20th February 2014
Notification of acceptance: 5 days after the submission
Deadline for submission of papers and presentations: 15th March 2014 (on the form of the website that is under construction)
All participants who want to present their work at the ATEE Winter Conference are invited to submit a brief and concise abstract (max. 100 words!). Please use the registration form. Contributors can submit proposals for individual papers of one or more authors. This is the preferred type of presentation because of the special structure of the conference: parallel sessions of 60 minutes with two papers (10-10 minutes for presentations and 40 minutes for discussion). However, if a group of researcher would like to submit a symposium or a workshop related to the topic of the conference, they should contact the organizers: ateewinter2014@gmail.com
If you would like to participate in the conference without presentation, please also use the registration form.
In order to foster real dialogue in the sessions, participants have to send their full paper (between 5000 and 8000 words) or at least a shorter, draft version of their paper (2500 – 3000 words) and their presentation (if they wish to use slides) one month before the conference. The papers and presentations will be uploaded to the conference website (to a platform accessible for participants). It is very important that the participants choose and read the papers in advance, and in this way after the shorter presentations, there can be a real dialogue about the research studies in the sessions. The number of presentations is limited to 110, and each author can submit only one abstract as single (or main) author, and another one as co-author.
General guidelines for abstracts:
All abstracts should be submitted in English, which is the official language of the conference.
All abstracts should be submitted on the registration form on this website.
High quality research can be presented in some words. Abstracts should be very concise, no longer than 100 words (title not included). They should indicate briefly the (theoretical and/or epistemological) approaches and applied methodology and the summarized main findings; or they should present the theoretical or methodological problems of the paper, and the offered answers, views or statements.
Criteria of evaluation:
connection to the conference theme;
clear and brief formulation of the focus of the paper;
appropriate style and language in accordance with the topic of the paper and with the concise nature of the abstract.
Full papers, after a process of double blind review, will be published online on the Conference Proceedings. High quality papers could be sent for submission to the European Journal of Teacher Education.
Follow
