Simulations

Baurillard's article immediately made me think of The Matrix as I was reading through it. I could envision the scene where Keanu Reeves wakes up in the pool of slime and nothing is as it was before. I was about 16 when The Matrix came out and my limited perspective made me criticize the movie for being outlandish, unrealistic, and a little offensive. I was so wrapped up in my simulation that I couldn't fathom anything different.

Since reading Baudrillard, I've come to a greater appreciation of The Matrix and its assault on my prized daily simulation game. What impacted me the most from Baudrillard's article was how the simulation of something is necessary to support its opposite. For example, capitalism is needed to promote morality and political scandal is needed to support political principles. Our daily simulation is a cyclical experience that must be perpetuated, or else we will see what is true and real...nothing?

We perpetuate the simulation of reality through all of our actions. For everything we criticize and every solution we create, we help the cycle flow. Education seems to be so valued in our society, but I wonder how people would react to the fact that it is useless. Isn't that what we'd find if we stopped the cycle of simulation? Quite literally, education goes through its own cycles to necessitate its existence in society. Various researchers propose different methods of instruction, assessment, or curriculum development causing divisions and teachers to hop on the metaphorical bandwagon and change everything they do. The wagon ride only lasts for so long until people get bored, or the public becomes wary of why test scores aren't increasing. Thus, another theory on learning is adopted and everyone jumps on the next wagon heading the other way down the path. Meanwhile, the people on the wagon are so weary, and their eyes are clouded with the dust from the trail that they can't even see which way they're going.

The simulation of reality is like a huge pendulum. It must swing as far as it possibly can one way before it will fall and come thundering back in the other direction, only to reach the top of the other side and repeat the process again. If we know this is also how trends work in education why do we keep following them? If we do whole language instruction for 10 years, then try phonics for 10 years, realizing that neither is completely appropriate, what comes next? (Obviously it is a balanced literacy program, but how long can that last for?) If we stop letting the pendulum swing, what will happen to the education system? Will the public still have faith in us? Do we need to necessitate our existence as educators in the school system? Is there something we're trying to hide? Maybe it is all a waste of time? If western education ceases to change, it will be seen for what it really is... according to Baudrillard. I don't think we're ready to accept that.

I fully support the concept of faith-based education. People should have the opportunity to send their children to a school that promotes a set of values and beliefs that they find fundamental for success in society. This becomes challenging when faith-based education is an option within the public school system. In Ontario there are 4 types of publicly funded schools: the English and French non-denominational stream and the English and French Catholic stream. People should be able to choose where they send their children to school, but should taxpayers be supporting a faith-based program that has no relevance to some of their lives, or might even be offensive to some of their beliefs?

Students attending Catholic schools should expect to receive quality Catholic teachings. Why would you send your child to a religious school without the expectation that it would help he or she develop a core set of religious values. In this vein, should Catholic schools be forced to implement curricula that challenges their traditional teachings? If the school is private, I would say no. If the school is publicly funded, they have a mandate to implement provincial curricula; therefore, they should implement something such as the Gender Studies course.

After reading through parts A and B of the Gender Studies curriculum, I can see why ardent Catholics would be opposed to its implementation with its confrontation of traditional gender roles, homosexuality, and women's reproductive rights. What I also see are issues that appear to be important to religious groups. From my limited knowledge of Christianity, I feel that Christians pride themselves on missionary work in foreign countries, denounce the rampant sexual and violent images in the media and their influence on children, and support centres for women and men who are victims of abuse. The previous examples all connect to curricular outcomes in the Gender Studies course, giving Christian educators ample opportunity to integrate Gender Studies with Christian values.

We have spent much time in class discussing the role of the teacher to interpret curriculum and select outcomes that are most relevant to our students. Why can't the Catholic schools do the same? Parts A and B do not promote values whatsoever. They simply require students to describe and analyze current and historic issues in society. If one has been well instructed in the values of his or her faith, they will not be foregone by exposure to new content. A solid set of values allows one to make judgements of the world from his or her perspective. Providing students with ample opportunities to view the world through multiple lenses allows them to be better citizens. As well, to truly understand your faith, it needs to be challenged; otherwise, one will be left with a superficial understanding of religion and church attendance and priests as the only conduit to God. Teachers in publicly funded Catholic schools must teach this curriculum because they receive funding from the provincial government. But, as professionals, they must also interpret the curriculum in the way that will best serve their students and communities.

2 March 2010

Canada is one of the one only developed nations in the world without a national education strategy. This is due to the structure and distribution of powers established by our federal government. Our government system is set up in a post-modern way with a central government controlling issues of national interest, while powers of more local interest are delegated to the provinces. This creates an interesting dichotomy as issues such as health care and education are provincially managed, but receive some funding from the federal level (when I say education in this context, think post-secondary).

If we, as a society, are concerned about establishing a "Canadian" curriculum, shouldn't we have a framework upon which to build it? Aren't we doomed for regionalization of curriculum documents if we lack a national platform for educational development and discussion?

Most developed countries have education as a responsibility of their federal government. After all, the federal government is also concerned about research and innovation, economic development, productivity and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Recent statistics have shown that, compared to similar countries, we have lower worker productivity and workplace literacy skills. As we shift to a knowledge-based society, we seem to be lagging behind.

What are some of the benefits of a national education strategy? National standards would help ensure that all Canadian students were being exposed to a certain set of key outcomes. This way, the government would be able to compare educational programming and achievement in rural British Columbia, to suburban Toronto, to metropolitan Halifax. To improve our economy, a national education strategy could focus on implementing common objectives that are needed to be successful in the modern workforce. A common strategy would also enable the government to better promote a sense of national identify and common norms, values, and mores.

Many people seem to fear the concept of a national strategy as it might reveal the injustice being served to some regions of Canada. Maybe we would discover that some schools do not adequately prepare students for the 21st century. Maybe we would discover the glaring inequities that exist between our regions. Maybe we would see too closely that we are post-national when we are not quite ready to embrace all that it encompasses.

There are also problems with a national education strategy. Students need to be taught in a way that reflects the community in which they live. Students need to learn about what is happening in their community and how they can work to improve it. Students need curriculum that is reflective of and responsive to local social and environmental problems. As well, is it fair to compare educational achievement between vastly diverse regions? Relevant learning in one are is irrelevant in another? Who decides which knowledge is of most worth?

As Chambers wrote in her article, there needs to be a forum for Canadians to discuss curricular concerns and share their concept of "place." What makes one Canadian is more ideological than tangible, so people need to discuss it to try to make it real for the population. We need to be given experiences to FEEL what it means to be Canadian. I don't believe that it is hockey itself that makes us feel a sense of national pride, but the cold, gritty nature of the sport that appeals to us. Baseball on the other hand, is too civilized to be considered Canadian.

I feel that we do need a national education strategy, but not as a set of prescriptive outcomes set out in a pan-Canadian curriculum, but as an ideological think-tank dedicated to promoting discourse on regional educational issues and sharing our concept of "place." Even beyond that, why can't we have a national goal for educational initiatives? We are a diverse nation, but we share the same economic goal.

What makes me feel Canadian is the fact that I've travelled across Canada from Victoria to Halifax and met many interesting people along the way. Seeing our land and hearing peoples' stories makes me realize how much we all have in common and how much we have to learn from each other. Why can't we have a forum to do this in education?