Igor: I commend you for your stand against the ideological subversion of schools currently being carried out by radicals and identity politics agitators. I think you've done great here, but allow me to make several constructive criticisms.
First of all, I'm not entirely convinced just yet that critical theory is the best descriptor to go with. I know it is sort of an umbrella term. However, I am currently studying the way that elementary school boards were subverted in the early 1990s and its clear that the most influential ideology at that time was that proceeding from black studies departments, critical race theory, black community activists and pedagogists -- specifically "anti-racism" ideology which was all about teaching white kids not to be racist (about making the assumption that they were) while simultaneously teaching black kids to be proud of their identity (which assumed that they weren't already).
But I haven't looked at the context you are referencing, high school education today.
Since you only mention the conservative party in connection with this sort of development, which is an odd thing to have done, I assume you vote left. According the the concise history of de-streaming in Ontario which I link below, the problem seems to start with the Liberals in the late 80s, definitely the NDP in the early 90s, and is either maintained, or in some regards partially revoked, under the conservatives of the mid-90s:
Because all of this theorizing (certainly critical theory) emerges from the academic left, I would argue that some of the best ways to refute these claims come actually from the right. Whether or not you personally feel inclined to esteem the right, you cannot meaningfully counter leftist academic theory by repeating its fundamental assumptions in whatever capacity. For example you say: "...steps must be taken to determine the reason why black boys are arriving at high school disproportionately unprepared for academic curricula... what is happening in those formative years (0 – 13 years old)? ... it is almost certain that systemic racism in the school system is not the sole cause."
Yes, well tacitly passing on the analysis that Canadian schools are systemically racist at all (AT ALL) does your argument and your resistance to ideology no favors. Systemic racism is an analysis cooked up by former black panther leader Stokely Carmichael (a black Marxist and black nationalist - see my contribution to this substack entitled A Moral Chimera...). This "theory" (that is, systemic racism) was then whole heartedly embraced by the social scientists of the academic left and has made its way now through all of our institutions including our governmental institutions. No radical west-hating piece of ideology has ever been more wildly insidious (i.e. transmitting widely like an STD).
Instead of repeating these near axioms, I would suggest you develop other explanations. Maybe that may even mean repeating a right wing talking point. Here's something Obama said in 2008, note the part about school dropouts:
"But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
See also Larry Elder on the topic of fatherless homes in the black community. Yes, you don't have to rely on the disparity fallacy (all evidence of disparity can only be explained by sexism or racism) to explain different group outcomes - you can actually study black culture and use what you observe in the attempt to explain differing outcomes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-GotqfNrmg
The best teachers are confident role models who know what they are talking about and can get the students interested and help change negative attitudes through their charisma and intellectual persuasion. This is especially true for young boys. They admire a person who has knowledge and skills. But as the article says, the CT system does not see people as individuals, with individual character, but as racial categories who behave automatically according to their level of oppression based on skin colour, sex, etc. It's absurd and damaging. The point that many parents may choose to send their kids to the private school system if this ideology becomes entrenched is quite valid, in my opinion, immigrant parents who want their kids to be prepared for the real world upon graduation will switch, esp. in places like Toronto, if they can afford it.
I'm an elementary teacher at an independent school in the GTA and you're spot on with the lack of non-politicized PL and the need to 'centre' student voices in the classroom.
Keeping up with the jargon is exhausting. Currently, our school is stuck on 'decolonizing' the curriculum. I got in a bit of hot water because I questioned why I need to do this in my science class and was told that more BIPOC scientists need to be shown in pictures and videos.
Igor: I commend you for your stand against the ideological subversion of schools currently being carried out by radicals and identity politics agitators. I think you've done great here, but allow me to make several constructive criticisms.
First of all, I'm not entirely convinced just yet that critical theory is the best descriptor to go with. I know it is sort of an umbrella term. However, I am currently studying the way that elementary school boards were subverted in the early 1990s and its clear that the most influential ideology at that time was that proceeding from black studies departments, critical race theory, black community activists and pedagogists -- specifically "anti-racism" ideology which was all about teaching white kids not to be racist (about making the assumption that they were) while simultaneously teaching black kids to be proud of their identity (which assumed that they weren't already).
But I haven't looked at the context you are referencing, high school education today.
Since you only mention the conservative party in connection with this sort of development, which is an odd thing to have done, I assume you vote left. According the the concise history of de-streaming in Ontario which I link below, the problem seems to start with the Liberals in the late 80s, definitely the NDP in the early 90s, and is either maintained, or in some regards partially revoked, under the conservatives of the mid-90s:
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2546658829/fulltext/2427E6137B0C4C24PQ/1?accountid=14771
Because all of this theorizing (certainly critical theory) emerges from the academic left, I would argue that some of the best ways to refute these claims come actually from the right. Whether or not you personally feel inclined to esteem the right, you cannot meaningfully counter leftist academic theory by repeating its fundamental assumptions in whatever capacity. For example you say: "...steps must be taken to determine the reason why black boys are arriving at high school disproportionately unprepared for academic curricula... what is happening in those formative years (0 – 13 years old)? ... it is almost certain that systemic racism in the school system is not the sole cause."
Yes, well tacitly passing on the analysis that Canadian schools are systemically racist at all (AT ALL) does your argument and your resistance to ideology no favors. Systemic racism is an analysis cooked up by former black panther leader Stokely Carmichael (a black Marxist and black nationalist - see my contribution to this substack entitled A Moral Chimera...). This "theory" (that is, systemic racism) was then whole heartedly embraced by the social scientists of the academic left and has made its way now through all of our institutions including our governmental institutions. No radical west-hating piece of ideology has ever been more wildly insidious (i.e. transmitting widely like an STD).
Instead of repeating these near axioms, I would suggest you develop other explanations. Maybe that may even mean repeating a right wing talking point. Here's something Obama said in 2008, note the part about school dropouts:
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094
"But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
See also Larry Elder on the topic of fatherless homes in the black community. Yes, you don't have to rely on the disparity fallacy (all evidence of disparity can only be explained by sexism or racism) to explain different group outcomes - you can actually study black culture and use what you observe in the attempt to explain differing outcomes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-GotqfNrmg
The best teachers are confident role models who know what they are talking about and can get the students interested and help change negative attitudes through their charisma and intellectual persuasion. This is especially true for young boys. They admire a person who has knowledge and skills. But as the article says, the CT system does not see people as individuals, with individual character, but as racial categories who behave automatically according to their level of oppression based on skin colour, sex, etc. It's absurd and damaging. The point that many parents may choose to send their kids to the private school system if this ideology becomes entrenched is quite valid, in my opinion, immigrant parents who want their kids to be prepared for the real world upon graduation will switch, esp. in places like Toronto, if they can afford it.
Maybe some groups do better or worse because of their culture, what's emphasized in their families.
I'm an elementary teacher at an independent school in the GTA and you're spot on with the lack of non-politicized PL and the need to 'centre' student voices in the classroom.
Keeping up with the jargon is exhausting. Currently, our school is stuck on 'decolonizing' the curriculum. I got in a bit of hot water because I questioned why I need to do this in my science class and was told that more BIPOC scientists need to be shown in pictures and videos.