January 2011

A Discussion of George Grant

As I've mentioned before, I think TVO is one of the best broadcasters in Canada [I started watching it when I lived in Toronto during grad school] and I wish we had more of this sort of broadcasting on our local Knowledge Network station. A case in point is a recent panel discussion [see below] of George Grant on Steve Paikin's The Agenda. Grant was a Canadian philosopher best known for his Lament for a Nation. The occasion was the 45th anniversary of Lament.

Other than a few who were occasionally shilling for their candidates, the panelists seemed like a thoughtful and representative group from both the left and right, and from both academia and the media. The initial point about Grant's old Toryism being unrecognized today certainly resonates with my own experience. Even my sharper students are always surprised to hear about a Conservatism - Red Toryism - that appears to have no bearing on today's politics. Like most philosophies, one has to be careful of conservatism's historical character. It's sort of like talking about pre- and post-1991 Russia: one has to be mindful of Canadian conservatism before and after its seismic shift of the 60's and 70's. It also reminds me of the belief that Charles Dickens' Hard Times is a socialist critique of capitalist industrialization; it is, however, a very Tory lament for the sclerotisation of society during the Industrial Revolution.

I found it interesting that many of the panelists emphasized Grant's religious convictions. I remember distinctly, as an 18 year old just out of 1st year college, that when I first read Lament it felt a lot like Roberston Davies, whose novels I had started reading around the same time. I felt the old high Anglican, Loyalist spirit in both. But I was surprised by the notion, as some of the panelists contended, that Grant's religious convictions (as on abortion) would trump all else, and that Grant supported Brian Mulroney even with the latter's continentalism. In a recent discussion with Ron Dart, a noted George Grant specialist from UFV, Dart disputes this contention. According to Dart, Grant's concern with continentalism could not allow Grant to side with the newer "Blue Tories", and that Grant, in fact, supported John Turner's (belated) economic nationalism.

One thing I never found convincing about Grant's thesis was his equation of technology with liberal American capitalism, and I agreed with the point in the panel discussion that technology shows its alienating effects in a number of different socio-economic melieus. I guess it has something to do with coming of political age in the early 1980's, when the scary post-war, liberal bureaucratic machine had become a punch line for the neo-conservative counter-revolution. As with Daniel Bell's "end of ideology" thesis, the threat of liberal bureaucracy, and the technological empire it apparently constructed, seemed - dare I say - obsolete. I'm more appreciative of the issue now, to be sure, but it wasn't my lament back in the 80's.

In any case, the Red Tory doctrine is a fascinating part of Canada's philosophical tradition, and has tremendous impact on other traditions, like Canadian socialism. It's also affected Canadian politicians, including R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker and Joe Clark. It is an important aspect of our Canadian political heritage, and deserves our attention.

Ben Levin's thoughts on education

The presentation below, by Ontario professor Ben Levin, makes some interesting points about modern education.

The first point is that many of the elements that differentiate the education systems of Canada and the USA - and lead to better PISA results in Canada - are macro-factors outside the control of individual teachers. Levin points to political differences, such as strong provincial governments versus weak state governments, that retard the consistent implementation of programs in America. He also points to financial inequities between American school districts that are much less pronounced in Canada. [He might have added that the USA is one of the most unequal societies in the western world.] Levin points out that countries with strong test scores closely correlate with strong teacher unions; strong unions succeed in winning good pay, benefits and working conditions, and this in turn attracts better candidates to the teaching profession. In many American school districts, where teachers are lucky to make $30,000 a year, the most capable young people generally go elsewhere to start their careers.

Levin's second major point refers to a problem that I have witnessed since the start of my education career: innovation for the sake of innovation. Usually caused by certain educators wishing to advance their careers, the constant cycle of innovation produces exhaustion and cynicism. Even if a new program has merit, it will most assuredly be dropped within five years. At most. No discussion about the past is allowed - that would embarrass those in power and expose an endless cycle of change - while we move on to the "latest and greatest". And there's an almost Orwellian air to professional development discussions; we must pretend that the old programs never existed. Levin's final conclusions on this topic should be a key lesson for all administrators: spend much more time on implementation than innovation. If he had supported the idea that brand new programs must be supported for at least, say, 8 years, then I would be in full agreement.

Levin's last major point is somewhat more problematic. To be sure, he argues that teachers must be respected and convinced to employ best practices, rather than be used and bullied. I have no problem with that! But I do have a problem with his assumption that there is one best way to accomplish a certain goal (like improving reading scores) or manage a classroom. In my experience, education is not analogous to flying a plane or designing a bridge. I often find that there are many ways to reach a common pedagogical goal or be a successful educator. These different paths often correlate with the many different personalities and temperaments that we find in a school's staff. Unfortunately, those differences are often seen as threats to the innovators, and older teachers (especially) are compelled to withdraw to their classrooms, lest their wisdom and experience provide a path away from the latest changes - and make them a target.

Improvement, Not Innovation, is the Key to Greater Equity from CEA ACE on Vimeo.

Media bias: yet more evidence

Right-wing corporate media bias is pretty strong in Canada. From the type of stories chosen and emphasized, to the spin and language used to differentiate NDP policies from Conservative, it's hard to consistently hear and read progressive perspectives in this country.

And though ownership and management are by far the most important elements of media bias (like Dennis Skulsky, former Canwest CEO and Publisher, and friend of Gordon Campbell), reporters are also part of the game. Who can forget that former CTV reporters, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy, are now Conservative senators?

Today we see another egregious example. Catherine Urquhart, a well known Global TV reporter in Vancouver, has had her bias caught in the proverbial cookie jar. Even though she is part of the larger Kash Heed saga, her own particular role interests me the most. Here's a passage from today's story in the Vancouver Sun:

VANCOUVER — Global BC TV news reporter Catherine Urquhart is being taken off the air pending a review into whether she breached any journalistic standards, the station's news director said Wednesday.

The decision comes after a recently unsealed search warrant revealed an email exchange between Urquhart and former solicitor-general Kash Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall.

“I can honestly say Kash would not be SG [solicitor-general] today if it hadn’t been for some key people behind the scenes,” Sall wrote to Urquhart on June 10, 2009.

“There were only truly 3 people that played a major role: Me, Peter Dhillon and yourself and Kash knows this,” he added.

“Peter was the money guy, I’m the brown tanned James Bond strategy girl-chasing guy and you were like the communications director . . . your stories, coverage and timing gave Kash a lot of profile and built him a following from day 1 at West Van and then leading into the election.”

In response, Urquhart wrote: “Hey . . . that’s really sweet of you. Have to say — there were a number of people along the way (cops and reporters — mostly cops) who seemed to have it out for Kash. But I always believed he was a good guy. I’m truly glad it worked out! C” ...

Not particularly subtle, eh?

Contrary to Sir Ken

Sir Ken Robinson’s RSA presentation on “Changing Education Paradigms” (see below) is a well-meaning critique of the "factory model" of education. Nevertheless, I think his alternative is much more flawed than the system he attacks.

At the core of Robinson’s argument is a familiar counter-Enlightenment, romantic critique of modern education. In a bid to standardize and routinize the process of learning, schools apparently suppress the authentic feelings and curiosity of children. Routinized learning (as well as its modern ally, Ritalin) anaesthetizes young people, blocking them from feeling “fully alive”. Furthermore, modern schools are a simulacrum of the factory model: a bell system, specialization and age cohorts. In the end, there’s not much difference between Robinson’s speech and Rousseau’s Émile, or On Education (1762): society corrupts the natural self, a self that – given a natural state - would wander, wonder and feel without reference to common industrial standards.

So if Robinson’s argument is not particularly novel, and refers to an enduring point of view, why then has it never been put into effect in a long-term, large-scale manner? Why have we never seen a romantic view of education implemented by a majority of school boards in the Western world? [Otherwise, the romantic critique would not persist!]

I would contend that romanticism is a noble but ultimately futile basis for mass education. I share its yearning for individual authenticity and respect for sentiment. However, I’m suspicious of a worldview that has never established itself as a viable alternative to the perspective it attacks. Of course, there are some movements like the Montessori schools and small, elite academies that emphasize experiential or “relevant” education. But these are usually focused on narrow age groups and small education communities characterized by high costs and/or disproportionately motivated participants. Like anarchism, romanticism does not appear practical for large and complex industrial societies. In other words, after so many education reform movements inspired by the romantic call to action, it hasn’t withstood the practical test of time. Across so many countries, so many communities and so much time, isn’t it likely that the one constant – the romantic critique itself – has serious flaws?

…………………