Author Archive for Tunya AudainPage 2 of 9

Educator Opposition to Evaluation — a Long History

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on February 11, 2008
in Abolish School Boards and Obstacles to Reform
. 0 Comments

Continuing to archive material from my files, I came across this letter to the editor deploring lack of proper evaluation in schools and a preponderance of teachers on school boards. Notice the mood being described. Parents and public want concrete information about the achievements (or otherwise) of their schools. But the response is more PR – public relations. In today’s scenario the teachers union is actively campaigning in the press and with parents to withdraw students from FSA (fundamental skills assessment in reading, writing and numeracy) in Grades 4 and 7 in public schools and provincially funded independent schools.

 
Feb 25, 1981
Globe and Mail
Dear Sir:
 

Parents, students and taxpayers are the losers when evaluation is not routine in our schools. We must begin with the premise that if anything is worth doing, it is worth assessing. So, why is education exempt?

Not only are teachers and administrators opposing evaluation of their own performance (G&M, Feb 23, 1981), they are also opposed to testing of students. There is presently, in BC, considerable lobbying by teacher groups against standardized tests, with the feeble suggestion that teachers should design their own tests. 

But, the majority of teachers have little experience, training or inclination to prepare tests. Nor should we expect it. While checking and feedback are part and parcel of everyday teaching, evaluation of the broader effort is best measured by objective, unbiased means. 

There seems to be an ominous defensiveness surrounding the whole area of student and teacher evaluation. What is there to hide? Is there a cover-up? This reluctance to assess results and effectiveness is probably the number one reason the public education system suffers credibility problems today. 

To further blur objectivity regarding schools, we see more and more teachers becoming trustees, thereby eroding the democratic principle of public control of public education. (Need I say that part of trustees’ jobs is to ensure competency of school staffs and effectiveness of instruction?) 

In BC we have had provincial testing of basic subjects for a number of years, but it is disappointing to realize that the testing is provincially referenced and has little comparative value against Canadian norms. In the most recent round of testing of reading, our own school district, though scoring well, felt the tests were themselves inadequate. Inflation of scores (making the students look good) was the perceived result since many of the questions were ambiguous, irrelevant to the skills tested, and some were downright too easy. 

Poor, watered-down tests (or no tests at all) are not the way to go if parents are to be assured that they have enrolled their children in good schools, that students are not being cheated of their education, and that taxpayers are to be convinced that their money is well-spent. So far, educators have failed to convince me that evaluation is detrimental. Surely, quality is possible to demonstrate, especially at a time when there is so much concern about rising educational costs and people are questioning their support of such a high expense service. 

Parents sending their children to the University of BC for their first year are not happy to hear that their son or daughter stands as much chance of failing as of passing their English composition test. The controversy that this year’s record 46% failure has unleashed is showing no abatement, with as yet, little agreement over the source of the problem or the means for solution.

However, we are grateful that we have at least one concrete measure of school success (?) that helps focus concern and problem-solving. We do NOT have, as the United States does, the kind of reputable testing programs which caused Dr. John Goodlad (a Canadian educator, now working in the U.S.) to question parents’ misplaced faith in American schools After completing a massive 7-year study of U.S. education this is what he said: 

I don’t think parents are as acutely aware of the achievement decline as many other people are….I think there’s an enormous unawareness on the part of parents as to what the schools are doing.” (Christian Science Monitor, June 9, 1980) 

Is this the kind of evidence we are being steered away from in Canada?

Unfortunately, when dissatisfaction about schools surfaces, the response is for more PR – public relations – rather than black-and-white evidence. What I find happening is that parents who are denied concrete information about their children’s school success, and who are denied meaningful voice in their schools are responding in a way which is telling indeed – flight rather than fight. Frustrated parents are looking for exits from the public education system and are pleased to find attractive alternatives via private schools, correspondence courses or home teaching. 

My message is this: If the public school system does not respond intelligently to consumer need for accurate information, they may find themselves without consumers.

 
(letter not published by G&M)

 

DECEITS IN EDUCATION

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on January 30, 2008
in Blog, DECEITS in education and Obstacles to Reform
. 0 Comments

The education systems I follow – Canadian, American, and UK – are so ponderously top-heavy on the supply-side of education economics that they can only survive from toppling over by using complex, interlocking schemes that deliberately and successfully thwart reform efforts from the demand-side (the customers). Having usurped the rightful “property” and duty of parents and teachers, they cling to power and influence by deceitful methods.
 

There are probably 101 DECEITS that impede effective education. I will start listing a few and you can add others.
 

   1. We aim for a classless society. Yet, by denial of choice in education, poor or disadvantaged students are prevented from overcoming limitations and leave school with deficient skills for quality life, work, or further education. Lack of choice frustrates social mobility. Equality of opportunity applies to the rich who can buy private education or move to catchment areas where schools respond to articulate customers.

      Look at the array of obstructionists that prevent CHOICE mechanisms from operating (magnet schools, charter schools, vouchers, open access….) and you start to see a good picture of those vested interests that benefit from a monopoly, state supply system.

   2. We have civilian governance of education. That is, trustees, are elected from the community to ensure that schools are run for the benefit of the students and not the providers (teachers, administrators, teacher educators, etc.) Yet, how many trustees do we see that are themselves educators, ex-educators, or ex-teacher union leaders with hidden agendas? And, they are quickly trained and domesticated to follow the dictates of the administrators. Some simply exploit this experience as an opportunistic stepping stone in pursuit of higher political aspirations.
   3. High costs of education are mainly due to teacher salaries. Yet, is this true? Compute all the overhead and subsidiary costs of the system. Factor in top dollar salaries of administrators and the rest of this bureaucratic empire. Don’t forget the costs of lawyers who are always on call in case of disputes. And, don’t forget the costs of Public Relations experts, conflict resolution experts, facilitators…..
   4. Parent involvement is very important to boost student achievement. Yes, research supports the correlation between student achievement and parent involvement, yet the current waves of soliciting more parent participation results in only more fund and fun-raising activities – not academic attention. Furthermore, whole industries of “parent involvement practitioners” are spinning off of this fad, further providing jobs for unemployed education PhD’s, adding more layers of “experts” and further mystifying parents and keeping them at bay.
   5. Education enables young people to be self-sufficient adults. However, the rising tide of mediocrity and dependency arising from “illiterate” grads is troubling. In some populations over 40% of students are drop-outs, leading to underemployment or dependence on welfare.

The poor economic performance in France and Germany is blamed on the education systems which prepare students for government welfare (“Learning to Love the Dole”) more than they do for entrepreneurship or productive employment. See: Europe’s Philosophy of Failure here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

Obstructing Techniques Foil Education Questions

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on December 26, 2007
in Obstacles to Reform
. 0 Comments

[Continuing to add to the list of Obstacles that prevent education responsiveness and reform, I attach my letter to the Editor published in the North Shore News, July 29, 1999.]

Dear Sir:

Parents have been moaning for decades about the unresponsive education system. They are so frustrated that in fact they are often more eager to “graduate” than their kids! 

The fact that now a politician is moaning (“Education system is unresponsive” July 16) shows just how much of a closed shop it is. Students complain, but get nowhere (“Teachers should know their subject”. June 30) and citizens want accountability (“Take more care with school funds.” July 14).

 The school system seems to be run for the convenience of the operators, not the customers. Even conscientious teachers, I hear, dare not rock the boat.

 My forty years of involvement shows the system uses these cagey responses to criticism:
 
  1. Freeze – Ignore, evade, or generally give the silent treatment.
  2. Pander – Isolate the complainer and co-opt the new-found “darling” into the system.
  3. Delay – Insist on due process, proper channels, and chains of command.
  4. Grandstand – The ultimate delaying tactic is to stage an inquiry or public hearing.
  5. Disempower and Mystify – Make parents feel inadequate and students feel juvenile. Stress that only professionals know best.
  6. Hijack – State in no uncertain terms that democracy is at work. Trustees are elected from the public to look after the general interest. Forget that trustees are the mouthpieces for the system: petty politicians using the system as a stepping stone for higher political aspirations. They are useful democratic window-dressing.
 There are many theories about why the system is so defensive and impenetrable. It would take a book to try and sort out the excuses and the agendas at play.

Whatever….I do know that any system which is said to have a 40% failure rate and which spins off numerous side industries such as math and phonics remediation programs probably does have something to hide.

I think this counter-productive, wasteful, anti-family, government monopoly is long over-due for radical change. Calling for more parent, politician or student involvement is not going to do it. More alternatives and loosening the hoops for starting independent schools might give some relief.

 
Sincerely, 
Tunya Audain

 

Obstacles to Education Reform

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on December 25, 2007
in Obstacles to Reform
. 0 Comments

“We can whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need, in order to do this. Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.” (Dr. Ron Edmonds, Harvard, 1978)

 It is 30 years ago that the Effective Schools Movement was born with the speech by Dr. Edmonds: “Some Schools Work and More Can”. 

Much is known about what works and what doesn’t. However, there is no ONE cookie-cutter approach that succeeds with all children. That is why CHOICE is important, and why parents have to be involved in helping find effective solutions for their children’s educational needs.

But there are OBSTACLES. 

Here are a few to start the list:

  1. Educators still differ about reading, and each wants their side to win: Phonics or whole word.
  2.  There is a lot of experimentation going on in public schools. This is a large pool of captive audience, and while new methods are being tried out, critics by way of concerned parents are not welcome.
  3. Besides experimentation about methods, there are also agendas, some call it social engineering, molding the “new man”, social justice, progressive education, whatever…. Again, critics are not welcome.
  4. Choices are limited because of financial constraints. Parents, as do other citizens, don’t like to pay double for services. Why should they pay school taxes as well as fees to private school or  suffer wage loss to home educate if they want out of the public school system?
  5. Organized obstructionism happens when reforms are proposed. For example, state voucher reform legislation in Utah was soundly turned-back when the combined forces (financial, manpower, organizational) of the country-wide teacher union (NEA) first forced a referendum, then overwhelmed the Yes side.

Education reform won’t happen until the obstacles and obstructionism are understood and counteracted. AND parents need to be equipped with knowledge and a Charter of Parent Rights to pursue their children’s best educational interests.

My new TOPIC in my blog will be: Obstacles to Reform and I hope others will add to the list started above. Parent Rights already has its own Topic in this blog. 

I should stress that I am as concerned about public school parents as I am about all parents who feel thwarted or frustrated. For example, Section 6 of Parent Rights and Their Children’s Education (1977) strongly outlines: The Right to Safeguards concerning privacy, assessment, experiments and innovations and that parents have special rights in these instances:

  • to receive a written description of the program, rationale, goals and supporting references
  • to grant or refuse permission for their child’s attendance
  • to receive satisfaction that the program is run by qualified, well-prepared personnel
  • to be involved in the ongoing evaluation.
 The Right to Appeal decisions in a public school should also be well advertised and understood by parents.

 

Home Education Endorsed as Reducing Socio-economic Disadvantages

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 15, 2007
in Home Education
. 0 Comments

 

“Canadian and American Policy makers should recognize the ability of parents to meet the educational needs of their children at home, without government involvement,” says Claudia Hepburn in the 2nd edition of Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (Fraser Institute, Oct. 2007).

The 24 page research document is worth downloading free from:

I was a pioneer in the movement in the 70’s and 80’s and devoted considerable energy and effort to jumpstart parent confidence in home educating their own children in Canada.  The above report refers to my article:  Home Education: The Third Option .

“It has been argued that home schoolers serve “as models of economy and effectiveness” (Audain, 1987). Such realities suggest that both Canadian and American policy makers should consider whether or not home schooling parents, whose property taxes subsidize public schools, merit reduction in those taxes or some other recognition of their contribution."

BUT, the important finding in this latest report is the value of home education to improving academic performance of students from families with low levels of education.

“Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do….evidence clearly demonstrates that home education may help reduce the negative effects of some background factors that many educators believe affects a child’s ability to learn, such as low family income, low parental educational attainment, parents not having formal training as teachers, race or ethnicity of the students, gender of the student, not having a computer in the home, and infrequent usage of public libraries."

All this supports my long-held belief that parent involvement in the substance of education (not the current vogue of using parents as volunteer labor in schools) is what matters. Both parents and students thrive in co-educational settings. Family efficacy is increased. Parents are not made to feel inadequate as is so often the case in interfaces with public schools.

See the news release: Home schooling improves academic performance and reduces impact of socio-economic factors: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4933

 

 

Implement the Rhetoric of Parent Involvement!

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 9, 2007
in CARE and Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

“Implement the Rhetoric” was the rallying cry of a group of parents - Citizen Action to Reform Education (CARE) – in the 70’s and 80’s in Vancouver BC (Canada). Tokenism, lip service, and symbolic use of parents were frustrating many parents. Below is a report I prepared in 1980.

 

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION: THE STATE OF THE “ART”

Ten years ago when my daughter entered public school I fully intended to continue being actively involved with her education. Her early childhood years were enormously satisfying and edifying for me and I hope for her.

Our experience in a co-operative, parent participation pre-school was very rewarding. Parent participation was a requirement in the co-ops. Parents were involved at all levels – clean-up, policy, fund-raising, and staff evaluation and selection. Parents filled some of the personnel requirements of the school and attended evening classes to acquire the sets of skills desirable with respect to psychology of learning, philosophy of education and child development. 

I felt I did my part in this co-educational partnership and could see the mutual benefits for myself, my daughter and the school as a whole.

But, my good intentions to carry on this notion of education partnership were brought up short by the Kindergarten teacher. Visits to the classroom were not encouraged, and, never more than one parent at a time. No parents volunteered in the classroom, and communication was limited to twice yearly parent-teacher conferences. 

Plus, of course, voluminous pieces of art work which told me little.  

Teacher newsletters lacked warmth and even though the invitation was written down that parents were welcome to discuss concerns with the teacher at any time – this seemed hollow in view of the “tone”. 

Needless to say, I was deflated by the experience – and found my experience was similar to most other parents who had “graduated” from the co-op. From a “high” of being needed and part of the child’s education, the “low” of rejection was hard to take, much less comprehend. 

I, like a number of other enthusiastic parents, had, — in the thrall of early parenthood  –  taken all the “right courses”: pre-natal, post-natal, early childhood development. As well, we bought all the right books and educational toys. The joy of leaning together with my children (My daughters are now 14 and 12) was something I wanted to build on. 

The “hands off” attitude by the school was common, I found, even though today Kindergarten teachers are more attune to bringing parents along. What made me really confused and hurt was that the “hands off, leave it to the experts” approach did not square at all with the rhetoric of participation as espoused in early childhood courses.

I resolved there and then that this was something to be wrestled with. I’ve been wrestling with it ever since. *

Thereafter, in allying myself with other like-minded parents, “Implement the Rhetoric” became our rallying cry and created an instant bond between us. We knew exactly what that meant. Lip service to parent involvement is a frustration many parents have experienced and experience to this day.

I, even in those days, went so far as to complete a teaching degree in the event I might see the desirability of educating my children at home. This precaution, I found from my research, was not necessary as today there are parents educating their children at home without these paper qualifications. 

This report on the state of parent involvement, then,is not without subjective feelings. But, it is a report to the best of my ability, to convey the reality of parents and schools today – the good news and the bad news – based on an active involvement and study of the field for over ten years.

*[My note: I wrote that in 1980. Today, 27 years later, Nov 9/2007, and as a grandmother, I'm still wrestling with the plight of parents in our public school systems. I am producing this blog as a record of the past and a platform to continue current discussions on the topic.]

 

Family and Education Report (1987) – Part 6

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 4, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

V. BUILDING HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP 

Regarding the question of school/family relations we became aware of the yet unpublished article by Dr. John D. Friesen, Department of Counseling Psychology, UBC, entitled “The Family and School: An Uneasy Relationship.” In it he writes that

 The thesis of the paper is that parents should assume an important role in the child’s education and that a cooperative partnership between the home and school needs to be promoted.” 

He reviews the evidence in support of this position. He begins to ponder concerning 

…resistant attitudes toward parent involvement in education”, 
and wonders if egalitarianism may be a factor. He states, 

…schools have a tendency to deny the influence of all home environments as educators try to equalize educational opportunities for all children.”

 He further states that 

School and families have a reciprocal relationship, which requires the development of a partnership in which cooperation, trust, and mutual understanding exist.” 

In view of our long-standing interest in improved home-school relationships, we ask: 

Question #10: Do parents think they have adequate, supportive and meaningful consultation with their schools?

Question #11: If the consultation is unsatisfactory, and in light of positive evidence in support of greater parent-school cooperation, to what would parents attribute this resistance. Where could the remedies come from?

VI.             ADULTS AS ROLE MODELS TO CHILDREN

The Committee was mindful throughout its deliberations and study that good education occurs not only from good materials, textbooks and lessons, but also from the role models students have before them. Parents, for one, must be seen as effective people by their children with a role to play in educational decision-making (not as frustrated, “driven-to-tears”, helpless individuals). Family competency and stability relate to how well parental duties are carried out. Family efficacy enhances positive parent-child communication. The following question arises: 

Question #12: Do parents think they are as fulfilled as they could be in carrying out their role in the education of their children?

Teachers, principals and others in school settings must also have exemplary role modeling attributes.  We would like information on the following: 

Question #13. Do parents think mechanisms are appropriate for both the selection of school personnel and for the removal of those considered incompetend and abusive to students?

VII SUMMARY

While we recognize there are many laudable experiences and practices in the school system, our Committee was not charged with the task of examining the overall picture, but rather to pursue those questions relating to how the family is portrayed in the curriculum and how the family is treated in home-school relationships. To date, the Committee detects a general concern that the family role has been diminished in the system, and there is anxiety, at least among a good number of our members, about the decreased influence of parents in the education of their children and in quality control of their schools. 

The Committee is seeking to eventually propose policies and tools to greater enhance the family role in education. In order to do this, we would now like to broaden our base of information. 

Through the general distribution of this Interim Report #1, the B. C. Council for the Family hopes to receive input from across the province on the above 13 questions in order to proceed to development of tools and policy proposals for greater family involvement in the education of their children. 

March 1987

 

Family and Education Report (1987) – Part 5

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 1, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

 

III. CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING

We note that the general principle in a free, democratic society is that public institutions must reflect the public’s will and not the self-interest of those who run the institutions. The Let’s Talk About Schools discussion paper (1985) reflects this basic principle: 

The Provincial curriculum is presently determined by elected representatives of the people – the legislature and schools boards. Their authority in this regard is based on the proposition that the public, through its representatives, has the right to determine what is taught in schools.” 

However, our committee found a discrepancy between policy and practice. The seemingly official practice is described in this passage from a recent article in the BC Teacher, April/May ’86 (“An Agenda for Curriculum, the Next 10 years: A Perspective from the Ministry of Education”, by Bob Overgaard), 

…curriculum development in B.C. is a system controlled largely by teachers, on behalf of, and in contact with, their colleagues. Although the government reserves the right to inject its authority at any point in the process, its role has consistently been to support a process of professional and collegial negotiation…” 

We pose the following questions: 

Question # 5: What do parents think about their exclusion from the curriculum process, that is, the development, review and incorporation of community values?

Question #6:  Do parents think “collegial negotiation” among differing educator view-points adequately covers the range of input that might be gleaned from the wider community?”


IV FAMILY IN THE CURRICULUM 

We have examined the materials relating to Social Studies, Grade 1 - 3. With respect to the question of family and personal privacy, we note that much attention is focused in the Grade 1 materials and suggestions for class discussions on sharing information about one’s family and one’s feelings (What are some things that make your family happy? Sad? Tell your class about a special relative.”…) 

The concepts to be learned from the Grade 1 curriculum are listed as understanding “family, identity, interactions, need, change, diversity, interdependence and power.” 

We note awareness on the part of curriculum developers concerning matters of privacy and sensitivity: 

Studying family life involves many sensitive subjects: death, divorce, adoption, step-parents. We remind you that tact will be needed when dealing with such topics and urge you to reassure the student that his or her family, whatever its form is an acceptable one. Many of the activities call on the students’ own experiences of family life and some children may reveal confidential information about their families. You should be sensitive to situations which approach an invasion of privacy: guided by a knowledge of your students and the local community, you should be able to select and monitor appropriate classroom activities.” 

The Committee would like the following feedback: 

Question #7 Do parents think the children are mature enough at the age of 6 and 7 to deal with such matters as the above curriculum goals dealing with interactions, interdependence, power and such matters as may be raised concerning death, divorce and adoption?

Question #8: If any problems concerning lack of sensitivity arise, how do parents proceed for appeal or remedy?

In our study, we also examined contrasting views of the family as held by such divergent ideologies as traditionalists, feminists and socialists (Family Issues and Public Policy, Study Commission of the Family, London, England). We note that one’s attitude to the family is strongly influenced by one’s value system or point-of-view. 

Depending on one’s philosophy, ideology or value system, there is a difference of opinion as to whether curriculum should aim at a) giving students facts with which to make their own decisions, b) extend family values, or 3) change values. We feel that the “decision-making” exercises and the texts in the Explorations series can undermine family authority and integrity and can lead to peer dependency and socialization to a group norm. The following question arises: 

Question #9: Do parents think schools should be involved in value questions, and if so, at what age levels, and with what guidelines and philosophy? 

Family and Education Report (1987)– Part 4

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on October 21, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

 

The Family and Education Committee was established by the BC Council for the Family in the Spring of 1985. On August 26th the President of the BCCF wrote to the Minister of Education requesting assistance with respect to gaining information and materials for examination. The letter emphasized the following:

-          the Council’s concern that many problems of western society were traceable to the erosion of the family

-          that the BCCF has a role to play in conducting studies and communicating with parents on matters which help to enhance the family

-          that efforts to foster positive home-school interaction had not resulted in improved consultation

-          that there was concern about how the family is portrayed in the curriculum and how it is treated in home-school relationships.

 The letter requested access to sets of materials for examination by the committee as well as other information about policies and process. The committee was expected to present interim reports
 

…to help us further elicit response from our various audiences. In this way, we believe, we will be able to build some useful tools to help parents become more involved with their schools.”

 After two years of work the Committee produced Interim Report #1, March 1987. The following briefly reports the experiences and findings of the committee and poses the questions for which we would like feedback. 
 

I.                   ACCESS TO INFORMATION

It was a difficult and long process for the Committee to obtain materials and textbooks for examination. Since the Committee feels it is important for parents and public to know what is being taught in public schools we would like feedback on the following:

Question #1:  What is the experience of parents, at all levels of the education system, in obtaining materials and textbooks for purposes of review?
 

II.                PARENT CHOICE

 
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that
 

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children.”

We noted that, like the rest of Canada, BC has few alternatives to offer in the public education system. We would like to ask parents:

Question #2:  What do parents think about the number and range of choices concerning schools for their children?

Question #3:  What information is available from different schools about programs, philosophy, results and services in order that parents might make informed choices?

Question #4: When parents have the right to excuse their children from controversial subjects or programs to which they object, is the process respectful of the child and family?

 

Family and Education Report (1987) – Part 3

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on October 20, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments
 
In 1984, The BC Council on the Family was again called to action on education. A concern surfaced about home-school relations when a brief was circulated among board members which expressed the long-standing concerns of an ex-school trustee of 13 years. The brief was sent to the Council because of its declared support for the institution of the family.
Essentially, the brief expressed concern that through the medium of the authorized curriculum and textbooks, B.C.’s children may be inculcated with attitudes that may weaken family stability, either by challenging parental authority or by down-playing the importance of the family in the social structure of the community. Questions were raised as to how curriculum was developed and to what extent parents were informed or involved in curriculum decision-making and school information generally.
Board members (who represent all regions of the province) were canvassed about their reactions to the paper. Because of the seriousness of the concerns and particularly, the shared concern of many board members about the lack of knowledge about what is taught in schools, a committee was struck in the Spring of 1985, the Family and Education Committee, to examine how the family is portrayed in the curriculum and how the family is treated in home-school relationships.
 
The Terms of Reference for the Committee were:

I.                   Cognizant of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, Section 3, that

 Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children
The Committee will pursue their task, keeping in mind two fundamental principles which flow from the above declaration:
 

a)      the right to information, and

b)     the right to family privacy.

     II.                The purpose of the study shall be:
 

a)      to inquire into the influence of the public education system upon attitudes towards the family as an institution.

b)     to inquire into the influence of the public education system upon attitudes towards parental authority:

i) in the home

ii) in the child’s school concerning the child’s participation in school activities and choices among school courses,

c)     to inquire into the attitudes and practices of schools towards parents when they ask questions concerning their children’s’ courses of study, curriculum content, progress, behavior, etc.,

d)     to make recommendations concerning the need, and the ways and means, of encouraging parents everywhere to become knowledgeable about their schools and what is being taught,

e)      to make recommendations concerning mechanisms for obtaining parental input into curriculum decisions and choices of books and other authorized materials,

f)       to undertake an initial study of identified curriculum materials where concerns have been expressed, or as the committee so decides,

g)      to consider the multicultural dimension in BC in the study and recommendations,

h)     to inquire of the Ministry of Education on any matter that is pertinent to the development and selection of curriculum,

i)       to inquire concerning any other matter that the Council deems pertinent in the interests of families and education,

     III.    The public education system, for the purposes of this study, includes all programs over which the Ministry of Education provides oversight, that is, public, private and independent schools, and correspondence courses.
 

This study is to concentrate on programs of a mass education nature and excludes counseling situations between teachers and students.