As per course,
Read Chapter 2 Analyzing Cases Using the Equity Literacy Framework p. 11 – 20 in Case Studies on Diversity and Social Justice Education by Paul C. Gorski and Seema G. Pothini (2014)
Using the Skills on p. 13 Figure 2.1 and the Equity Literacy Case Analysis Framework on p. 14 to complete the Case Study Analysis.
Read Case 3.4: High Expectations or Unrealistic Goals? P. 29 – 31
Prepare notes on the following to utilize in our discussion which will occur in the Zoom Session.
Use the Questions on p. 31 and discussion on p. 130 to help guide your response. Consider the following as well: What biases and ‘single stories’ are evident throughout the case? How is the deficit narrative evidenced in comments and resources (school staff, university staff etc.)? What school practices, structures, and policies reinforce these deficit narratives? What systemic policies, procedures, and structures reinforce them? How does this case highlight the difference between opportunity and access? As a Principal in what ways can you work to disrupt or dismantle the structures, policies, practices, and mind-sets that contribute to those deficit narratives, biases, and stereotypes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As per discussion,
An Investigation in Case 3.4 from Gorski and Pothini
Introduction:
As a actor accessing the role played of Principal by myself, I am drawing understanding from provided questions listed in p.29-31 Paul C. Gorski and Seema G. Pothini (2014), with regards to the teacher’s (Ms. Sutter’s) decision to take the students on an unprepared guide of a college; the teacher’s responsibility in offering equitable experiences in educational practice and the potential for a teachable moment with keeping the dignity and integrity of all students intact.
Step 1: Identifying the Problem
Before amounting the concerns with regards to case 3.4 High Expectations or Unrealistic Goals? the following will need to be understood, teachers are not sole proprietors in the approval process of a field trip, from the beginning (in all school boards) principals are included in the planning and approval process of a field trip. In this case the case’s focus is on systemic prejudice. In the case that this comes for review, it could be understood that through the understanding of “securing accountability” in the Ontario Leadership Framework (2013), the principal holds even more responsibility than the teacher (minus immediate student care insinuated by the Education Act, 1990). Although, the university may have its prejudicial standards and beliefs systemically built into the processes carried out by the admissions (as demonstrated through the dialogue by the Director of Admissions), there is a matter of fact that the teacher has not been to the institution beforehand to examine what would be worth noting for her students nor had the principal followed up with the teacher to ensure that the teacher had a plan in place in the event of a situation in which something like this had occurred, or her familiarity with the school itself. As an initial question a principal may ask “Why did you choose this university in particular?” Then following up with questions that allow the principal to see if there were purposeful connections being made between the learning and/or experiences of the students and this field trip. The reason this may come up as an essential portion of perspective is because although the teacher may have been trying to act equitable, the teacher may not have actually reflected with the considerations of her students’ personal learning, location and financial situations in mind. In an example, a student in Toronto who is seeking the opportunity to study in a Medical Sciences program may not benefit from a trip to Brock University located in St. Cathrines, but would much rather benefit from a university tour of University of Toronto. Furthermore having been on a college road-trip myself, I know that sometimes its not a university campus tour of the campus itself really, but the experiential learning opportunities that a perspective student can have through sit-ins and “meets” with various deans or professors. Personally reflecting on my experiences at Lakehead and at Nipissing, Ryerson, etc. After reviewing the case, I have identified approximately 3 problems, these problems stem with a core issue in communication, but the fault can certainly be divided equally. Speaking to the issue of equity, the teacher is expected to follow-up with a plan of action co-created alongside the principal.
Step 2: Taking Stock of Varying Perspectives
First of all, from the perspective of the other stakeholders (the university and its staff visited, parents, and students), they may feel the teacher failed to communicate with the university that they were interested in visiting. Most (if not all) school boards have policies field trips, after reading policies from York Region District School Board (2022) and Catholic District school Board of Eastern Ontario (2020) these are policies that are aligned with the Safe Schools Act. This stresses the need for alignment with the Education Act. For someone outside of the classroom and unfamiliar with the student’s particular needs, the teacher should be able to understand that it would be important to make a point of organizing this field trip through manner that ensures there is opportunity for both the school visited and people visiting to make accommodations. In doing this the teacher would be able to give a detailed and accurate representation of the trip to not only the student’s guardian(s) and the Principal but the university being visited as well. The university could then prepare a tour guide that is suitable for an audience that is in 5th grade (as well as on a field trip). In personal experiences, having been a tour guide, it can sometimes be overwhelming and stressful as it is sometimes a part of a volunteer arrangement with people who asking varying degrees of questions. The teacher knew prior to the trip that she would be arriving with a group of students. Based on what the director says, “we can’t afford to put your group ahead of those students”, it seems that the university was not informed of the visit. If the visit was arranged, the university would/should have contacted the teacher in advance to notify them of the unavailability. There could have been more than enough time to make an appropriate judgment call on the part of the teacher. This further questions the teacher’s ability to follow the Ontario Schools-Code of Conduct in the following area, “communicate regularly and meaningfully with parents” (The Ministry of Education, 2022). If the teacher had in fact been communicating with the students’ parents, the teacher would be able to get a much clearer picture of what kind of supports would hypothetically need to be in place for one of their children to be able to afford post-secondary education, this being important to note because one of the goals that the teacher may have in place at the club is various self-inventory activities or literacy building opportunities that allow students to understand how to prepare for various scholarships, or even budgeting savings for that matter.
A second perspective (from the school board), in regards to conduct in this case is that the principal is a stakeholder in field trips, some school boards, such as York Region, have gone as far as to outline the responsibilities (section 3) of different roles in the event of a field trip (2022). As a part of the Ontario Leadership Framework (2013), the Principal is expected to secure accountability, which basically means, ensure there is an understanding of where people are, what they are doing and for how long they will be there. The approval process of the field trip goes well beyond the principal, but it is certainly the principal being the second line of query that would raise questions. If the teacher had embellished, lied or defrauded the process in someway, this would be a much more serious matter than as it is currently situated. As a principal as well, one should consider previous alumni from that university who may be within the school community that may be of assistance in enriching the experience of the students.
Lastly a potentially well-mannered, level-headed principal who wants to ensure that the teacher is not being disciplined for misplaced negligence may believe, as a school board, it is important to report in each investigation in regards to violations of The Ontario Human Rights’ Code (1962) and ask that the OHRC examine the case closely on behalf of the students, parents and teachers of the school board. It is integral that in this case, the principal and teacher both recognize that this systemic intolerance of the group is in need of desperate attention, taking a look at The Ontario Human Rights Code, a human in Ontario will observe the following, “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability” (1962). The principal may go as far as to expect the teacher to demonstrate their efforts and understanding of the situation’s seriousness by having the teacher file a complaint against the university under violation of The Ontario Human Right’s Code, through the actions and statements logged through the interactions with the Director of Admissions (eee the following website for complaints, https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/filing-claims-discrimination). According to the Human Right’s Code, “Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing” (1962), not only meaning that people of this school, race or situation in general should take action to be represented appropriate and free of prejudice, but to do so in confidence that they should not expect to be penalized by these actions that safe-guard their human rights. In many cases there may be perceived concern that students who come from this school board may be treated with more bias if their board has lodged a civil suit against them.
In regards to public perspective, the immediate issue of awareness and observance by the classroom teacher who took the student’s on the field trip, (however unforeseen circumstances may have been) would be willing to say this is a teachable moment that can be understood by the teacher after this first experience. In another light, this article outlining systemic racism in Canada’s Nursing Schools are reported through University Affairs News Reciprocal (https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/canadas-nursing-programs-address-racial-prejudice-in-the-profession/) in 2021. The racism being brought to mind is not only in part part of Canada but across the country and not just with regards to the applications of perspective students who are admitted to programs but the very curricular content learned. What the teacher in Case 3.4 is doing may be of good nature and intention but may if not well-organized could be ill planned and setting up a group of students for discouragement rather than opportunity.
Step 3: Consider Possible Challenges and Opportunities
In regards to challenges, the teacher would need to account for the potentiality that not all students may feel they are university bound, let alone aware of the implications of university versus college. The teacher should also note that in cases where parents/guardians did not attend university themselves, it does not need to solely mean that the families are under privileged, in many cases very successful people study in College for the matter of fact that university doesn’t offer the hands on programming or practical experience in the field needed to become a builder, botanist or radiology technician.
Step 4: Imagine Equitable Outcomes
If the teacher calls the principal, for advice on what to do next, it could be suggested that the students take an opportunity to check out the library, and sports facilities. In more happenstance scenarios, the principal may even know of the university themselves and be able to come out there out of an emergency support for this situation and have a teacher in charge at the school for the duration of the field trip.
Realistically, the teacher should consider the population’s demographics and try to create prior learning experiences that create depth to the experience so it is not just a matter of showing up and seeing a building or beautiful campus. Students may be able to even set up an opportunity to meet with a student at the university who had been their school for a duration of time as a student.
In reality, the school should not have turned the students away so nonchalantly, but endorses and appreciated the opportunity to build an itch for knowledge and excellence in perspective students.
Step 5: Brainstorm Immediate-Term Responses
Finally, the reason as a school we will stand together to face the reality of this miscommunication, “Education providers violate the Code where they directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally infringe the Code, or where they authorize, tolerate or adopt behaviour that is contrary to the Code.” This statement implicates many parties involved which is why I, as a school leader firmly believe. Reasonable accessibility to facilities that are a part of the learning experience are included in this. The teacher will file a report and/or complaint with the municipal government, as well as the Ontario government outlining the incident and issues raised on behalf of the school community. This report will be copied for the principal’s investigation. This will determine the sincerity of the teacher’s mistake in communication.
Step 6: Brainstorm Longer-Term Policy and Practice Adjustments
In the end, the principal will need to likely clarify the field-trip process and parent notification procedures to ensure a more transparent communication between all parties as well as proof of prior communication with the field trip hosts/venue.
Additionally, policies regarding student potentiality and generalizations will need to be addressed through a whole staff sensitivity training. Equity vs. Equality workshops/learning modules may be a first step, but creating more community outreach between parents and teachers to reflect the good intention efforts of the teacher who took the students on the field trip.
Step 7: Craft a Plan of Action
After the field trip, regardless of which way the teacher landed on the decision making process, to change the trip’s itinerary or have the student in need of accommodation observe a film, the teacher would need to prganize the PLC task as described in “Step 6”. This plan would come to application within the PLC within the span of a month, if not sooner.
The principal will need to connect with the university to offer them an opportunity to speak to the story given by the teacher who took the students on the field trip as a part of this investigation.
This would be a task that the teacher is expected to meet regularly with the principal about the group club content (within the realm of office hours, where the teacher may have other tasks to assume), the principal would log PLC time in with that teacher specifically to offer recognition for their dedication to reassure the school community that the school and its staff have student equity and meaningful learning/experience in mind. This one on one PLC time would allow the teacher to draw attention, reference and focus on different policies (or the lack thereof-in potentiality of a hypothetical).
After reviewing the documents, the teacher would need to create a PLC resource for presentation purposes on field trips that the school’s PLC may also invite parents to (potentially).
If not possible to invite parents to the PLC presentation on field trips with the other presenters present, the principal may decide to make the PLC available for PTA review or hold another sitting in which the teacher is requested out of expression of dedication to the school community and student inclusivity policies of the school board, to present at a PTA meeting. The idea of making this PLC opportunity available to parents would be to keep parents informed as a level of query that helps align teachers with the concerns of all stakeholders in the school community.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, as a principal, this case has been reviewed through case study framework and through the investigation it is clear that this is not a common error in judgement by the school administration or teacher, but through people communicating from a distance.
Ultimately, the school leadership and school board feel this will be an excellent opportunity for all teachers to participate in a field trip protocol PLC experience coming up, as implied through Ontario Schools – Code of Conduct, “develop effective intervention strategies and respond to all infractions related to the standards for respect, civility, responsible citizenship, and safety; ” (2022). This is expected to be run in part with the professional development resources available from the school board (on policy) and with the classroom teacher on shared field trip protocol experience as the school is excited to promote equitable experiential learning. To outright discipline this initial and unforeseeable offence would ultimately be detrimental to the development of the learning community that will support and improve on student standards, teacher reception/perspective of students and this particular teacher’s excellent methods in teaching in accordance with K–12 School Effectiveness Framework (2013) “6.3 The school and community build partnerships to enhance learning opportunities for students.” *This is presumed by myself as an actor in the role of this hypothetical case.
Works Cited
B1:4 School Operations – Field Trips Educational Field Trips. Jan. 2020, www.cdsbeo.on.ca/policies/B4-1_Field_Trips.pdf.
Education Act, RSO 1990, c E.2, <https://canlii.ca/t/55np9> retrieved on 2022-11-01
Gorski, Paul, and Seema Pothini. Case Studies on Diversity and Social Justice Education. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2018.
Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19, <https://canlii.ca/t/5574j> retrieved on 2022-11-01
“Ontario’s Code of Conduct for the Education Sector: Parent’s Guide.” ontario.ca, 2022, www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-code-conduct-education-sector-parents-guide.
The Institute for Education Leadership. The Ontario Leadership Framework. Ontario, 2013, www.education-leadership-ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_Framework_OLF.pdf.
The Ontario Ministry of Education. School Effectiveness Framework. The Queen’s Printer, 2013, files.ontario.ca/edu-school-effectiveness-framework-2013-en-2022-01-13.pdf.
York Region School District Board. Accessibility Policy 407. 2020, www.yrdsb.ca/boarddocs/Documents/PP-accessibilitystandardsforcustomerservice-407.pdf.
York Region School District Board. Accessibility Policy 642. 2022, http://www.yrdsb.ca/boarddocs/Documents/PP-fieldtrips-642.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment