Africentric high should be more than politics
Posted by Sandy on May 13th, 2008
While there are definitely some Toronto parents and public school supporters who agree with the notion of an Africentric program from Junior Kindergarten to Grade 12, the speed at which Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees and members of its “advisory panel” are putting forward and approving proposals is clearly political.
For example, today’s Toronto Star editorial comment states:
“Bureaucrats at the Toronto public school board have barely begun the effort of launching an Africentric elementary school this coming fall. But now some trustees are calling for an Africentric high school to open just one year later.”
So, however well intentioned, some TDSB trustees are making recommendations for an Africentric high school without adequate “action research” and feedback on the pilot elementary program slated for Sheppard Public School in September of this year. As such, in their unseemly haste, the needs of the students seem to have been forgotten or minimized.
Moreover, since the pilot project at Sheppard is to be a JK - Grade 5 “school within a school,” what has happened to the intermediate Grades 6 - 8? Are students aged 11 to 13 supposed to be included with the high school aged youth? That would be a big mistake and a recipe for bullying.
Which begs the question: Why are some TDSB trustees now considering approving an Africentric high school to open only one year after the JK to Grade 5 pilot project begins when: (1) they don’t yet know the outcome of the pilot project; and (2) no one has mentioned what will happen to the students in the intermediate Grades 6 - 8?
While I am in favour of the notion of school choice – in terms of meeting the needs of students – I am not in favour of funding programs that have not been ascertained to be effective. As well, I am also not in favour of program decisions that are purely political. The TDSB trustees and advisory board need to slow down, take a deep breath and find out what works and what doesn’t.
For example, if it turns out that students do not benefit from a segregated environment (which I clearly stated was my opinion when the decision was initially made), parents and trustees must have the freedom to state their case. We do not want it to become the equivalent of the global warming debate where some are called “deniers” simply because they disagree.
However, if the program is proven to be effective and students do benefit, TDSB trustees should then, and only then, proceed if that is what the parents want.
C/P at With Good Reason. Comments are being moderated.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“We do not want it to become the equivalent of the global warming debate where some are called “deniers” simply because they disagree.”
No, I think the word they will use will be “racist”. And the schools - will - succeed. Because they will - say - they succeeded. And that will be that. The evidence will be skewed so that it can only succeed.
And much like in the Toronto public school system, kids will graduate who do not know an analogy from a metaphor and the media will call it a rip-roaring success.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but the educational system is very important to me and it is the one thing that has severely broken down in recent years.
Thanks for your posts on this subject.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:26 am
The concern for me is that this whole idea is beginning to look a lot less than a choice for parents and more like what’s going to get this board off the hook. If this community has the government’s ok to educate its children to reflect their heritage AND receive the benefits of public tax dollars to do so…..I have a huge problem with that same benefit not be extended to those of other cultures, faiths etc.
I predict that under this board’s umbrella, this will end up being swallowed by bureaucracy. Whether it will turn out literate and numerate students? I’m not convinced. Hope I’m proven wrong.
Sandy said “Are students aged 11-13 suppose to be included with high school aged youth. That would be a big mistake and a recipe for bullying.” Tell that to the many small and rural boards like Avon-Maitland, and Upper Canada (and more) who are moving 7s & 8s into secondary schools in order to save their secondaries. With Best Start and the possibility of full-time JK there’s no room in the elementaries when small towns are forced to close schools.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Louise Brown wrote about this in the May 08, 2008 Toronto Star, and the quote that most concerned me was from Owen Leach of the Organization of Black Parents,- “But that ( the elementary school) would be “just half a school,”- “We need a whole school; it’s absolutely essential” for fighting the 40 per cent dropout rate among black students.
Also,
Ryerson Professor Grace-Edward Galabuzi said adding an alternative Africentric high school is crucial for providing a “holistic” continuous experience for students often overlooked in textbooks and often underestimated by staff.
He said while critics say Africentric schooling smacks of segregation, “it would be a way to actually integrate them – substantively – by providing an education that reflects their social and cultural realities.”
Where is Mr. Leach’s evidence that only a wholly separate Africentric school can help reduce the 40% drop out rate? And, how does Grace-Edward Galabuzi envision this ‘crucial’ alternative Africentric highschool as an integrative environment. I can agree that it’s integrative if it is modelled like the elementary ’school within a school’ Africentric school- where it’s actually an alternative curriculum in a real public school, and students who are not resident pupils but who may benefit from the alt. program can enroll.
Publicly funded education is a public service- it needs to be more evidence based, and less politically influenced. A 40% drop out rate in a population sector is a real problem, and real research needs to guide the actions we take to address it. The Organization of Black Parents can lobby for whatever they want, but public education is at risk when trustees respond to lobbyists. There’s a lot of special interests out there- how many of their individual, stand alone schools are we going to publicly fund, just because they say it’s ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Why do i get the feeling that a lot of the ‘education’ that the students will receive will consist of the denigration of western society, and the fostering of grieveances against whites for putting the black population in a disadvantaged position..
I would be surprised if that did not happen.
(Edited slightly.)
May 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Nicol — I agree that there is a danger that anyone who disagrees will indeed be called a racist. It is a descriptor meant to silence debate — which is a shame.
However, given the anger by many who responded to my earlier posts — who agreed it was a step backwards — there are many Blacks who also disagree with the JK to Grade 12 Africentric approach.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Ann — Paula brings up some good points about “politics” verus the lack of research to direct practice.
I have the same feelings about putting Grades 6-8 in with a high school — just to keep it open. It is hard enough for Grade 9’s to deal with high school. In effect, what rural boards would be doing is “using” the younger students just to keep high schools open. That is hardly a solid basis for such a decision.
If, however, the rural boards use a “school within a school” approach, that could probably work. It’s no different than Eden and Lakeport in St. Catharines, each using the facilities at separate ends of the complex.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
It is what it is Sandy. Grade 7 & 8 kids in many rural and small towns will be in their secondaries….some already are. Stratford Central for example is such a school. Plans also for same to happen in neighbouring towns. Upper Canada has proposed all secondaries receive 7s. & 8s. In Toronto the 7s & 8s are going to the elementary schools because the elementaries are losing students at a faster rate than are the high schools. It’s truly all about saving schools and saving money.
Paula said “Publicly funded education is a public service” - yes, and parents and students the customers of the deliver of that service, yet not declared an essential service….yet.
She also said that “it needs to be more evidence based & less politically influenced” - couldn’t agree more re:evidence based proof of success, programs, achievement etc., however, until the state gives up its control of education political it will stay. There’s no getting around it unless there’s a groundswell of grassroots opting for more choice outside the public system, AND inside that can work in tandem.