Education Advisory

The Gore Global Warming controversies re: truth or otherwise of his film, books, speeches, etc. has at least exposed a lot more food for thought.  To me, the most important outcome so far has been the revealing of the existence of anti-indoctrination legislation in the English School Act, 1996.  How many of our School Acts in the states, provinces, countries have similar sections, and if not, why not — given present politics in schools?

Section 406 of the Education Act says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid…the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school".

And if political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, the authority, the governors and the head are required by Section 407 to take "such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that…they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".

The High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Burton, stated that "there would have been a breach of sections 406 and 407 ….but for the bringing of these proceedings… ". He awarded two-thirds costs against the Government.  At least one can be grateful that in England there was an Act and courts to provide some remedy to the parent who brought this case forward (Mr Stewart Dimmock) however costly it was to him.  Society benefits when captive audiences of students in schools are presented balanced pictures of controversial issues.

The Judge did NOT forbid the showing of the film ( as was hoped ) but did required amended guidelines to apply:
1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.  If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

I will try and determine how many of our 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada have "indoctrination" laws and guidelines.
Can we try and get a world picture?

I have recently joined, on a free trial basis, a group which involves consumers in education. Their site is: Education Consumers Clearinghouse.

My latest conversation was today with Mona in England, see below:

From Canada, just joining the ECC conversations. Mona’s posting today reminds me of conversations we had at CIDOC, Ivan Illich’s center in Cuernavaca, Mexico in the 70’s (he of deschooling fame).

1) Yes, I believe we can date the “crippling” to have started around 50 years ago (Mona’s words: half a century). Let’s pin this down as to the factors that contributed to making of parents and children as dependent clients.

2) At CIDOC we talked about the “iatrogenic” results of schooling. As in medicine, unintended illness or symptoms generated from medical treatment (Mona’s words: in school…at public expense…by hard-working, well-meaning but MIStrained teachers).

3) Yes, I too as a parent was told “not to interfere” with education. It was some kind of catechism handed down from the teacher unions, as I generally heard this first at school board meetings when parents dared to question methods (as new math, sight vs phonics, ita, etc.).

I am recording, for the historical record, my own experiences of the last half century in my blog.

I am hoping to produce an essay on the issues raised by Mona and hope others can contribute research and effort to establishing more genuine parent involvement in education, not less.

In another recent communication with Tom, he had said:

if education remains a socialist enterprise, all of our gains will eventually be swept away by the sort of creep who inevitably rises to the top in organisations which are not subject to the disciplines of the marketplace

I sent him the following note:

Reminds me of the Peter Principle:

The theory that employees within an organization will advance to their highest level of competence and then be promoted to and remain at a level at which they are incompetent.”

[After Laurence Johnston Peter (1919–1990).] Please remember or be acquainted with the origins of those insights of Mr. Peter’s. He was a long time employee in the Vancouver School Board system here in British Columbia, Canada.

I hope to shortly produce a d-r-a-f-t essay on the issues discussed plus bring forth a solutions-based approach to the problems of “hierarchism” as so ably articulated by Mr. Peter who probably should have received a Nobel Prize in Economics before he died.

The solution proposed will be the libertarian notion of subsidiarity:

Subsidiarity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level…

From Catholic social teaching:

The principle of subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person…