Teacher Professional Learning: Critical Theory in the Classroom

Canadian Teacher Examines The Contradiction of Critical Theory In K-12 Education

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash

This is post is by regular Woke Watch Canada contributor Igor Stravinsky.

What is Critical Theory?

According to Critical Theory (CT), people do not act as individuals, but rather according to their group identity. People can thus be placed along a continuum from very privileged to very oppressed according to their “intersectional identities”. This creates a kind of hierarchy of privilege with heterosexual white males at the top and transgender black disabled people, for example, near the bottom.   

What is the CT view of racism?

The traditional view of racism is denying opportunities to people based on their race. But according to CT, any case where “privileged” racial groups overrepresent “oppressed” racial groups is considered to be the result of racism. No other possible reason is ever entertained. This is interesting because when the opposite situation occurs the CT people do not see this as an issue. For example, black men, who make up only about 12% of the men in the USA are way overrepresented in the NBA, but no one is demanding that teams take action to balance their rosters. Everyone can clearly see this would be absurd- players should be recruited based on their ability to play basketball, not to satisfy an arbitrary racial quota system. To a rational thinking person, the CT view seems illogical. But to the true believes, anyone who questions CT is, by definition, a racist.

What is teacher PL?

Like all professionals, teachers need ongoing professional learning to remain up-to-date on their knowledge and skills. While this has always been largely on teachers’ own initiative, cost, and time, there used to be a core amount of this learning done on paid time. This was invaluable because all the teachers were doing it at the same time, allowing for collaboration and the sharing of information and ideas.

This kind of professional learning has been completely replaced with CT based initiatives in various forms, usually presented as a rationale for some kind of CT based ministry or board initiative. Anything based in CT principles cannot be questioned. To do so would be to question CT itself and thereby declare yourself a racist, homophobe, transphobe, or the like. Teachers know to keep their mouths shut.

A recent PL session in a Peel High School is a good example of the CT based “learning” taking place. The “training” was around “de-streaming”.

What is de-streaming?

Up until the school year 2021-22, grad 9 and 10 students were placed in ability level classes:

• Vocational: For kids who were functioning at a much lower level (grade 4 to 6) than their peers. These kids were being prepared to enter the workforce, although the potential to transition to Applied and College level classes did exist. This was a separate program- the students did not mix with others in any of their classes and required an In School Review Committee (ISRC) recommendation and parental consent for enrollment. Not all high schools offered vocational classes. 

• Applied: For Kids who were functioning below grade level in the subject area: English, Math, French, Geography, and History. Students could enroll in a mix of applied and academic level courses if they wanted. The elementary school made recommendations, but it was up to the parents in what stream the student was enrolled in which course. Applied courses led to college level courses in the senior grades. Moving up to academic courses after grade 9 was possible but could delay graduation or require summer school. 

• Academic: For kids at, or slightly below grade level. The pathway led to university (or any other) courses at the senior level. 

The Peel District School Board Review recommended “de-streaming” so as of 2022-23 all students except those in special programs for developmentally delayed students (a small fraction) will be placed in these de-streamed classes in grade 9-10.

Teachers are very concerned about de-streaming for two main reasons:

1. Class sizes: The class size maximum for vocational classes was 17. For applied classes it was 22. For the new de-streamed classes, it will be up to 30- almost the same size as the academic classes. Large classes worked fairly well at the academic level because academic students are able to work autonomously. They can follow a set of instructions and will take the initiative to ask for help when needed. They have a set of prerequisite skills and a bank of prerequisite knowledge that the teacher can take for granted. Everyone is on the same page. The applied classes were smaller because those students had mild learning challenges. These vary from student to student. In order to be successful, they needed far more individual attention than the academic level students. They did not have all the prerequisite skills and knowledge to tackle the academic curriculum. The same can be said for the vocational students except that the situation is more acute, hence the very low class-size limit. In spite of the fact that all three groups of kids will now be in the same classes, the class sizes will be much larger than what the lower functioning students would have had under the streamed system and the curriculum will be much more challenging. This is setting kids up for failure. 

2. Training: The training teachers have been receiving has not been focused on how to teach such a large, diverse class, but rather on rationale for de-streaming, in an effort to convince teachers it is the right thing to do even though it is clear to anyone that this will degrade the learning especially for the students who are struggling coming in. The fact is, there is no way to maintain a high educational standard in such classes. It will be a case of dropping expectations so as not to fail too many students. This has already been happening as a result of the pandemic and will now continue.

Most teachers believe that de-streaming is an optics exercise intended to hide the fact that certain identifiable groups of students are performing poorly compared to others. In the PDSB the highest achieving students are Asians, and the lowest are black boys. Indigenous students also perform poorly but only make up about 0.5% of the total student body, not really a representative sample. 

It is the position of most teachers that steps must be taken to determine the reason why black boys are arriving at high school disproportionately unprepared for academic curricula. No one believes they are inherently less able, so what is happening in those formative years (0 – 13 years old)? Most likely the school system could be doing more to address this issue, but it is almost certain that systemic racism in the school system is not the sole cause. Of course, no one has tried to find out the answer because to suggest that the reason is anything other than teacher racism is, well … racist!

The fact is the “racist teachers” hypothesis does not make any sense because Asian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and other students who are members of groups who have faced discrimination and racism are actually out-performing white students. Racism alone cannot explain deviations in scholastic performance, but of course may be a contributing factor. We will never know because the school board is not interested in entertaining any other explanations. 

How did the PL support CT?

An examination of some of the slides reveals the CT underpinning the PL

Slide 1: A CT approach to pedagogy

Agency is the new buzzword but “educrats” have been talking about “voice and choice” for students for a long time. This is nothing new and good teachers have been doing it forever.

That said, a teacher does not attend 6+ years of university for nothing. The students expect the teacher to know things and to teach, and with good reason. Students cannot be expected to “create the learning experience” any more than you can “create the operating experience” when you are getting cut into on the operating table in the hospital. Are you and the surgeon going to discuss the most effective way to remove that appendix? 

This is classic CT because it casts the teacher, usually a “privileged” person, as the culprit when students are not successful. It is not because the student has not arrived at school ready to learn (tired, hungry, depressed, lacking prerequisite knowledge and skills, etc.) it is because the teacher has created a learning experience that does not engage the student. The idea that to be successful, students must share in the creation of the learning experience has no basis in fact. Teachers know from personal experience that it is bunk, because regardless of how the lesson is created the same students will do well. That is because those kids are the ones who value education, want to do well, and arrive at school ready to learn. If we want all students to succeed, we have to be sure they all arrive at school in that condition. But that is largely beyond the control of the school system.

Slide 2: A directive to adhere to CT

This slide tells the teacher, in no uncertain terms that it is their professional duty to adhere to CT principles:

• Students should decide what they are learning and be making pedagogical decisions (not exclusively the teacher who is an oppressor and must empower the oppressed (students). Absurd.

• The format or content of learning should be determined by a student’s “identity”. This is equally absurd and is CT in its purest form. In a Peel Classroom you have kids from myriad races, cultures, socioeconomic status groups, sexual orientations, gender identities, etc. etc. Are you supposed to find out all that information about every kid, then tailor make a lesson for each of them? The whole point is they are all supposed to be learning the same thing, geometry, let’s say. Teachers will tell you that the students who do the best are often from a racial/cultural group the teacher knows little to nothing about. This is all part and parcel of the blame and shame game of trying to pin the poor achievement of a small group of kids- black boys and indigenous kids, on teachers. But it just does not add up.

I will just comment on this part, the rest I already addressed: “It is when young people have options in identifying what they want, and the agency to put together what works best for them, and the confidence to pursue their passions, that their academic selves get activated.”

This is based entirely on CT ideology. There is no, zero, not a scrap of actual empirical evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, teachers will tell you that what makes some kids successful and others not is the attitude they bring to the classroom. If they have been taught that academic studies are important and of value, if they have been told that teachers are to be respected, then they will arrive at school ready to learn. They will trust that the teacher is knowledgeable and wants to help them to do well. They will show up on time, pay attention, try their best, be respectful, and ask for help when they need it. And they will learn. But they have to be in the appropriate learning level. Would you put all 12-year-olds in the same swimming class when some of them cannot float in the water and others can confidently swim in deep water? Grouping by ability is the norm in our society because it works. 

Teachers were in tears during this presentation as they imagined Vocational students thrust into large academic level classes. They won’t have a chance. And the really sad thing is this was tried already in the early 1990’s and was scrapped. Will we ever learn? CT Ideology has trumped what most experienced educators know is best for kids. 

As a kind of aside, it should be pointed out that the application of Critical Theory to the public education system will degrade it. That is why it is supported by the Conservative government. They know that in response to a degraded public education system, people will demand charter schools and public funding for private schools, both directly and through tax breaks. Conservatives want smaller government and more privatized services. Fair enough, but they should come clean and admit that. But they know that would come at a big political cost. 

The worst of this is, that when it all happens, the students who will suffer the most will be the very marginalized kids CT proponents claim to care so much about. That is the real tragedy of it.  

_________________

For more from this author read - Critical Social Justice Ideology in Education (substack.com)