SO much to write....so little time!
The article Ontario Bishops Reject High School "Gender Studies" Course could not have been introduced any better than a class discussion on Postmodernism. The situation certainly highlights that multiple voices (or multiple discourses) are present in a postmodern society.
A couple thoughts...I really found my train of thought interesting while dealing with the article.
Pre-reading - My first reaction (even before reading the article) was a snap judgment against the Catholic Church for rejecting the course. I admit, although i fully understand that at times the Church need not align itself with mainstream society, I'm sensitive in these issues because of the stereotypes many people have with the Church (close minded, judgmental, etc). I guess i just don't appreciate being lumped in with a close minded fundamentalist...so when an article like this comes out i tend to have a knee-jerk reaction.
During Reading - while reading the article i found a greater understanding of the possible objections to the course content. I can see if the Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality, abortion etc does not align completely with the discussion topics and content they would have to be very careful as to how the course would be implemented.
Post Reading - I'd imagine that the Catholic Church would have no objections if the course was to implemented as history course outlining the major figures regarding Gender Issues and Equality. That type of a course avoids assigning values or "correctness" to the issues but rather focuses on the content. However, the course outline is pretty clear that many objectives in the course are aimed to foster higher levels of thinking which inevitably leads to influencing attitudes, thoughts, values, etc....does it not?
I found it interesting that Chelsea, Lana, and Brad's presentation on the Grade 9 Social Studies Curriculum centered on the fact that, although values were integrated into the curriculum, they rarely are actualized in the classrooms as teachers get wrapped up in the content, lack the ability, or run short of time. Perhaps, the Catholic school board is wasting their time in the objections...most teachers would probably find there was too much content, not enough resources, and too little time to actually develop the open minds intended by the course. They'd default to teaching only the content in a dry boring manner that would do little to change the attitudes or behavior of the students.
I know...i know...i'm being a little facetious but i thought i'd try to tie together all the ideas, thoughts, and discussion from last class into one giant blog! I look forward to hearing your comments!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that schools need to be proactive in determining the kind of citizen they would like to support. The school should be run with this in mind constantly. I don't think that teaching courses such as this is the answer. Like you I don't think that teachers would welcome the job as it is such a Pandora's box. Reflexive programming such as this is common however, e.g. programs for teenage pregnancies, dropouts, bullying, etc. Governments will always have to show that they are responsive to current events and so reflexive programming will be an inevitability as we go forward.
ReplyDeletePerhaps what is needed as a constant though is a clear vision of the factors that contribute to the healthy development of children. This should be the backdrop of the school and should be the filter through which every activity in the school is passed. When you enter a school it should be clear that there is gender equity, not just because it is taught, but because there is concrete tangible evidence of its existence in the behaviours and attitudes of the occupants of the school.
That's a good point you raise about how the proposed curriculum might be better received as part of a history course because it might not be as value charged. One of the interesting elements of looking at the Grade 9 Social Studies curriculum was that in the introduction, it referred to how teachers should attempt to be "neutral" and not project their own beliefs onto the students. Since we know that teachers are unable to teach in a "belief vacuum", I found this statement particularly ironic since a large component of the Social Studies curriculum was specifically promoting values, such as citizenship. It makes me wonder how, even if the gender studies' curriculum was taught as a history course, teachers with differing values might teach the curriculum differently. Some teachers might address the content as a list of historical facts, others might use the curriculum as a jumping off point for discussions about how the content should/could influence students' current beliefs and behaviours.
ReplyDeleteI found Graham's comment in response to the blog interesting with the suggestion that there is a need for "a clear vision of the factors that contribute to the healthy development of children". I think this is a good suggestion, but it becomes really difficult to hammer out exactly what that vision is. I would imagine that for the people who oppose the gender curriculum, they would argue that not exposing children to the topics in the curriculum would be contributing to their "healthy development". Others might argue that witholding the information in the gender studies' curriculum would be compromising the "healthy development" of students. In light of the reality of postmodernism, I'm not sure if it would be possible to arrive at one clear vision that is agreed upon by everyone in a community, a school division, a school, or even a single class!