Schools Remain Focused on “Equity Plans”
Even though they are ill-conceived and there is no evidence they work
Woke Watch Canada is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
By Igor Stravinsky (Teacher, commentator)
“The School Improvement Equity Plan is designed to create conditions to empower all students including those who have been historically marginalized. When we collect data, analyse our gaps and set goals, we can engage in systemic transformation for students to thrive”- The Peel District School Board
The Peel District School Board has a School Improvement Equity Plan (SIEP). The objective is to “analyse gaps” in achievement (between identity groups) and then set goals to reduce (or ideally eliminate) these gaps, usually in “literacy” and “numeracy”, terms which can be defined in different ways, some of which might strike the average person as unusual. They also talk about “sense of belonging and well-being”.
The premise here is that any gaps in achievement between identity groups can be attributed to the lower performing groups having been marginalized in the past, thus members of these groups face “systemic barriers”. Left unexplained is the inconvenient fact that many groups that were, and arguably still are marginalized, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Jews, have thrived in Canada and outperform others in many pursuits, including academics, and members of these groups are also underrepresented in criminal activity and incarceration.
So, what are the stated SIEP goals?
Literacy
“We will increase Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) scores by 5% in the 2024-2025 school year and review grade 6 Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) data to conduct a gap analysis”.
Progressive-minded educational theorists and school administrators often speak disparagingly about testing, especially widely administered standardized tests like the OSSLT. Why, then, is the ultra-progressive PDSB basing its success criteria on it? Simply because, unlike equalizing identity-based group academic outcomes, marginal improvements in test results are easy to manufacture. You just make the test a little easier, or provide more resources and supports for the students taking the test.
I remember in my grade 4 class way back when, the teacher had taken a struggling student under her wing. She was determined to improve his test results, so she just kept giving him more and more hints every test, up to actually pretty much giving him answers until he eventually got a perfect score. She was really excited about that, but the rest of us grade 4 students could see the whole thing was a farce. How little things have changed.
When the OSSLT was brought in back in 1999, it was a big deal. Teachers had to sign off swearing that they would not reveal the content to anyone. There were strict protocols in place to ensure that students could not cheat, and any kind of hints or helping was strictly prohibited. That all made sense, because the government of the day, Mike Harris and the Conservatives, had developed the test due to their belief that the school system was failing to teach literacy to all students (not an unfounded position to take then or now). As the new sheriff in town, Harris did not own the education system, he was the guy who was going to fix it, or so he said. Bad results only bolstered his position.
But over the years, the government in place had to be accountable for the system. It was politically important for test scores to be improving, so more and more “supports” and “accommodations” have been allowed for students writing the test. For example, at one point, students were allowed to use a hard copy dictionary. Then online supports were allowed. These days, students can listen to the questions read out to them and their verbal answers can be scripted. It has reached the point where you can pass a literacy test without needing to read or write!
As for the “gap analysis” the board has been doing those for years. They will conclude that certain identity-based gaps remain, and that there is still a lot more work to be done. That is good news for people employed in the massive “Equity” bureaucracy. Their jobs are secure! Demanding equal outcomes between identity groups in every facet of the schools is a never-ending task and is pure gold for these bureaucrats, who siphon off vast resources that could be used to actually promote learning (or any number of other valuable things). Such people quickly become true believers, and will never advocate for their own elimination. On the contrary, they will fight tooth and nail using every activist trick in the book to keep their plum jobs.
Numeracy
“We will develop and share our instructional practices rooted in culturally responsive approaches, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and triangulation of data to maximize student success and optimize high expectations for all students”.
The rationale given for adopting “culturally responsive approaches” is that, absent a familiar cultural context, students will struggle to learn, thus gaps in learning between groups can be attributed to a failure on the part of teachers, most of whom are White and Christian (at least culturally even if they are not practicing the faith), to provide such a context. This is in fact the gist of the Universal Design for Learning concept. It is absurd for two main reasons:
The evidence does not support this assertion. In fact, the students who are most successful in school are often those who are not from mainstream Canadian culture- the aforementioned Asians and Jews, for example.
Providing a familiar cultural context for learning to each student in a class of 30 kids from a dozen or more identity groups is simply impractical from a pedagogical standpoint.
Triangulation of data, in an educational context (at least in Ontario), means that marks are not based entirely on tests, projects, presentations, exams, etc., but rather a mix of conversations, observations, and “products” (actual coursework). This is really nothing more than sleight of hand to jack up marks, increase credit accumulation, and improve graduation rates. Can you imagine a teacher giving out a mark that was lower than the product mark? In other words, the teacher calculates the mark based on all the actual coursework completed and then decides to lower it based on some conversations he has had with the student, or some classroom observations he made? Of course that would never happen, because everyone knows the real mark is what the student earned through their coursework. Such a lowering of the mark could never be justified, but raising it based on these things is commonplace.
UDL certainly can maximize student success if you define that as passing courses and graduating, but it has never been empirically shown to increase learning. Far from “optimizing high expectations for learning”, it has taught students that they don’t need to do much, if any, coursework to earn credits and graduate. Academic standards are in freefall.
Sense of Belonging and Well-being
“We will create a safe, inclusive, and caring school environment by developing safe school policies that are culturally responsive and develop instructional programming that reflects student’s [actual PDSB grammar used] lived experiences.
Schools are not safe. Unruly and violent behaviour is rampant. This is probably the #1 reason people want to get out of the profession. One of the main reasons they’re unsafe is written right into the Board’s proclamation: “...policies that are culturally responsive”. This is multiculturalism run amuck.
If by multiculturalism you mean enjoying the cuisine or artistic or sporting activities of many cultures, that is all well and good, but if we are to have safe schools, we cannot fall for the notion, popular among leftists, that all cultures are equivalent. A culture that promotes misogyny, violence, or racism, for example is toxic.
Yet school boards promote and support such cultures whenever they perceive the cultural group concerned to be “marginalized”. The Board sees groups as “oppressors” or “oppressed” and bases its decisions on which will receive preferential treatment based on that. So, if a student from an “oppressed” group misbehaves, they will likely face less discipline than if the offender were a member of an “oppressor” group (like whites or Asians).
Pointing out that some cultures are worse than others is strictly forbidden. Talking about the horrible misogyny in Afghanistan, or that Arabs in the Middle East punish homosexuality with severe consequences up to the death penalty would get you into a lot of trouble. In the same vein, you cannot speak about the socioeconomic problems our Indigenous communities here in Canada experience in such disproportionate numbers, that is, unless you clearly assert that these problems are entirely the fault of non-Indigenous (especially White) people. People lament the high number of missing and murdered Indigenous women but don’t usually mention that the perpetrators in 90% of these cases are themselves Indigenous (men). If you point that out, activists will respond “colonialism” without skipping a beat.
Does instructional programming have to reflect students’ “lived experiences”. Well, if you are teaching the Pythagorean theorem, the lesson will be the same regardless of the student’s religion or cultural background. Geometry is of value no matter what your identity is. The essence of learning is the pursuit of the truth in all things. There is only one truth, which education brings us all, regardless of our personal circumstances or beliefs, closer to knowing. Along the way we recognize our common humanity.
Even if it would help, getting to deeply know the lived experiences of up to 90 students every few months is simply impossible.
The Board should drop its divisive obsession with identities and focus on ensuring equal opportunities for all students and stop trying to engineer phony identity-based outcomes. Far from improving education, all the time, money, and energy being spent on this fool's errand is making things much worse.
Thanks for reading. For more from this author read, New “Equity” Initiative at the TDSB Amounts to a Tax on Fundraising
Follow Woke Watch Canada on X - @WokeWatchCanada
Or, by contributing to our Donor Box:
Schools want equal group outcomes, so they “engineer phony identity-based outcomes.”
To raise up the indigenous or blacks, equity-communists reduce Asian or Jewish scores and scholarships.
This is all Trudeau-driven madness. And with the recent election, it is madness continued.