Monday, 25 November 2013
Monday, 21 October 2013
A Better Way
The following post is a response to this video:
I think the easy, gut reaction to this video is to agree with the principal. I mean, I instinctively dislike that only a few children have access to such great resources. I dislike this in the same way that in third-world countries there are sometimes no schools and certainly far less resources then our publicly funded schools. It begs the question that if we deem it reprehensible for government to fund "rich" schools, than aren't we condemning our own publicly funded schools if we consider third world schools? Does our responsibility end at our borders? There is such deep hypocrisy in the principals' statement that a deeper examination of the implications of that belief is necessary.
1. What role do larger classrooms and storage spaces, greater access to new technologies, new textbooks, and other resources play into the success of a student?
2. In comparison, what role does a teacher play in the success of a student?
3. Could one conclude that since the private school has better facilities and resources, that they also have better teachers?
These are important questions, because the video is making a statement that more resources creates inequity with no discussion of the impact of the teachers on educational equity.
Rep·re·hen·si·ble (Adjective)
|
What popped out to me as the main point of this video essay
is what the principal from the “poor” school stated when questioned as to her
thoughts on the “rich” school receiving government funding for their students.
She deemed this as “reprehensible”. She stated that privileged people should not have the privilege of receiving benefit from their tax dollars if they choose to send their children to private or "privileged" schools. These are strong statements; ones that I
think we should examine.
I think the easy, gut reaction to this video is to agree with the principal. I mean, I instinctively dislike that only a few children have access to such great resources. I dislike this in the same way that in third-world countries there are sometimes no schools and certainly far less resources then our publicly funded schools. It begs the question that if we deem it reprehensible for government to fund "rich" schools, than aren't we condemning our own publicly funded schools if we consider third world schools? Does our responsibility end at our borders? There is such deep hypocrisy in the principals' statement that a deeper examination of the implications of that belief is necessary.
First, if we agree with the sentiment of the principal what does it say about our beliefs about education? Let's examine this thought process by first of all posing several questions around students' educational success:
1. What role do larger classrooms and storage spaces, greater access to new technologies, new textbooks, and other resources play into the success of a student?
2. In comparison, what role does a teacher play in the success of a student?
3. Could one conclude that since the private school has better facilities and resources, that they also have better teachers?
These are important questions, because the video is making a statement that more resources creates inequity with no discussion of the impact of the teachers on educational equity.
Second, if we agree with the sentiment of the principal, are we agreeing that education needs to be equitable for all Canadian children or at the least, that we should penalize those who have the resources to provide more for their children? Again, let's examine this by posing more questions:
1. Should we withhold the opportunity for a student, who comes from a prosperous socioeconomic background, to tour Europe over the summer with their family and in the process receive an amazing educational opportunity of history, art, and culture? In this vein, would any and all vacation opportunities afforded to a child therefore be considered educationally inequitable?
2. How do we possibly micromanage people's affairs enough to ensure that although income levels differ that no children receive educational benefit from their families increased income?
3. What about post-secondary education? Do we need to ensure no Canadian children move on to Yale or Harvard?
4. If we care not only for our own citizens, then how many tax dollars should we be sending overseas in order to provide good quality equal education across the globe?
5. If all the people that agree with the principals' statement had the money to send their children to the private school, would they not only choose to not send their kids there, but take that money and buy more resources for their local school?
6. If we are not willing to put our money where our mouth is, then should we open our mouth at all?
Do you begin to get the picture that when we attempt to control inequity in this fashion we are caught in a web of hypocrisy and impossibility?
Yes we could simply stop funding the private schools, but what message does that send and is it truly what Canada stands for? Are we really about forcing people to give their money away by increasing taxes of the rich and decreasing their access to the benefit of those taxes? In our hope for equity are we willing to sacrifice the rights of the wealthy to make their own choices with their money? Would we not benefit greater by raising a generation taught to be generous then raising a generation taught to be entitled?
Our government cannot make all things equitable because all things are not equitable. However, we can make a difference in how we each spend our money by giving a greater portion to a greater cause then ourselves. If you were moved by the inequity of this video why not consider taking a minimum of a tenth of your net income and donating it somewhere to the betterment of our community and the world. Isn't that a better way?
P.S. For clarity... I wouldn't send my kids to Weber and don't really like Weber Academy. The more I learn, the less I like. I simply disagree with infringing on other's rights to send their children where they want to and have their tax dollars follow, even if I disagree with where they send their kids. And... I think there is a better way to support education then increased taxation or increasing the inequity of our taxation system.
1. Should we withhold the opportunity for a student, who comes from a prosperous socioeconomic background, to tour Europe over the summer with their family and in the process receive an amazing educational opportunity of history, art, and culture? In this vein, would any and all vacation opportunities afforded to a child therefore be considered educationally inequitable?
2. How do we possibly micromanage people's affairs enough to ensure that although income levels differ that no children receive educational benefit from their families increased income?
3. What about post-secondary education? Do we need to ensure no Canadian children move on to Yale or Harvard?
4. If we care not only for our own citizens, then how many tax dollars should we be sending overseas in order to provide good quality equal education across the globe?
5. If all the people that agree with the principals' statement had the money to send their children to the private school, would they not only choose to not send their kids there, but take that money and buy more resources for their local school?
6. If we are not willing to put our money where our mouth is, then should we open our mouth at all?
Do you begin to get the picture that when we attempt to control inequity in this fashion we are caught in a web of hypocrisy and impossibility?
Yes we could simply stop funding the private schools, but what message does that send and is it truly what Canada stands for? Are we really about forcing people to give their money away by increasing taxes of the rich and decreasing their access to the benefit of those taxes? In our hope for equity are we willing to sacrifice the rights of the wealthy to make their own choices with their money? Would we not benefit greater by raising a generation taught to be generous then raising a generation taught to be entitled?
Our government cannot make all things equitable because all things are not equitable. However, we can make a difference in how we each spend our money by giving a greater portion to a greater cause then ourselves. If you were moved by the inequity of this video why not consider taking a minimum of a tenth of your net income and donating it somewhere to the betterment of our community and the world. Isn't that a better way?
P.S. For clarity... I wouldn't send my kids to Weber and don't really like Weber Academy. The more I learn, the less I like. I simply disagree with infringing on other's rights to send their children where they want to and have their tax dollars follow, even if I disagree with where they send their kids. And... I think there is a better way to support education then increased taxation or increasing the inequity of our taxation system.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)