 |
Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council Dedicated to Preserving Family Values P.O. Box 66714, 38 King Street East, Stoney Creek, ON CANADA L8G 5E6 A Chapter of Canada Family Action Coalition |
 |
RESPONSE PAPERISSUEThe Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has established a Policy Validation Committee, and has requested a response from the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council to the HWDSB proposed Equity Policy Supporting Guidelines: Anti-Classism and Socio-Economic Equity.BACKGROUNDThe Hamilton Wentworth District School Board is committed to ensuring that all its policies, guidelines and operating practices actively demonstrate a commitment to equity. In addressing this issue, the Board has developed a new Equity Policy.The Equity Policy has three distinct parts:
At this point only the Supporting Guidelines: Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity have been drafted, validated, and accepted by the Board of Trustees. Presently, the Equity Policy Steering Committee has completed a draft of the Supporting Guidelines: Anti-Classism and Socio-Economic Equity. This draft has not yet been validated and submitted to the Board of Trustees. It is this draft which is the subject of this document. At a later date, the Board will be drafting Supporting Guidelines for Sexual Orientation, Gender Equity and Equity for Persons with Disabilities. The Board's commitment to equity will be evaluated annually. DISCUSSION:The main points are as follows:We believe that there should be a clear and explicit statement of the goals of the policy. The policy's only stated goal at this point is establishing equity. However, the reason and purpose for establishing equity, and the reasons why this is important, are not discussed directly in any detail. This is very problematic, and is accompanied by a confusion of ideological frameworks, which work against each other and undermine the policy, rendering it confusing, contradictory and open to challenge. For example, we believe the goal of the equity policy should be to enhance the learning opportunities and successful school experience of disadvantaged groups of students in school; to enable them to overcome any disadvantages created by their social circumstances; to enable them to fulfill their full potential as citizens and as skilled wage earners or entrepreneurs; and to make a valuable contribution to the society in which we live. Equity should establish and enhance cooperative and harmonious relationships between groups of children based on mutual aid and selflessness. The HWFAC believes that such a goal is appropriate and valuable, but it does not appear to be the implicit goal of the equity policy. Rather, the equity policy presents an ideology which works against these kinds of goals. First, the use of terms such as "class", "dominant and non-dominant groups", "equality of outcome", "subordination", "power", and "deprivation of political, educational, social economic and cultural rights" are highly politically charged terms. Their use suggests that the policy aims not to enhance opportunities for children in our society by giving them better opportunities to enlarge their skill base and to enable them to succeed by exerting their learned abilities and capacities in socially useful ways. Rather, it suggests that the policy aims to condition them to struggle politically against the very social structures which the school represents in its efforts to train and educate them. This is counterproductive to what we believe should be the goals of equity. Related to this, we believe that there should also be a clear statement of definitions of equity and equality, in order to differentiate these two concepts clearly. This is an equity policy, and the definition of equity is fundamental. At the moment, the policy appears to confound equality and equity, which makes any statement of goals confusing and contradictory. For example, the definition of equity is the following: Equity refers to rights of individuals to an equitable share of the goods and services in society. In order to ensure equality of access and outcome, equity programs may treat groups differently when the situation in society precludes equal treatment. Equity programs are designed to identify and eliminate barriers to equality. Often, equity programs are more inclined to accept the priority of collective rights over individual rights. I am sorry, but I find this nearly impossible to interpret. Is the goal equity or equality? When I did my Ph.D. in policy, equity meant "getting what we deserve", or "equality of opportunity", but the outcome after all the investment has been made in an individual to prepare that individual for all the eventualities of life, was up to that individual. There was no expectation that the outcome would be equal. Equality of outcome appears to have an entirely different and unrealistic meaning. It suggests that whatever one does, or how well or poorly one invests one's own time, that the outcome will be the same for everyone. This understanding represents a particular ideological framework which we believe is dangerous, and we believe it needs to be addressed. Until this confusion is cleared up, it reduces any chance to define clearly what goals the policy is intended to achieve. This confusion of ideologies is important, because the notions of "class" and "dominant and non dominant groups" carry with them certain baggage which is contradictory to the apparent goals of the policy. First of all, these definitions of relations between "classes" of children as the policy defines it, sets these groups against each other in conflict and with competing and contradictory needs. It establishes the ground for hostility and struggle between them. This is unnecessary. The policy can avoid this and still meet its goals. Defining some children as coming from non-dominant groups suggests they will take on the identity of "victims", and we believe this is inappropriate and dangerous, both for these students as individuals, and for the society in which we live. I work in psychiatry, and I often work with youth in the schools, and I know how profound a self-definition of "victim" can be in determining a student's future life choices. The notion of "dominant groups" is also highly problematic, for the same reasons. Groups of children who are defined as dominant establishes the possibility of another form of self-definition which runs entirely contrary to what we believe should be the goals of the policy, to establish cooperative and harmonious relationships between groups of children based on mutual aid and selflessness. Another reason for objecting to the notions of "class" and "dominant and non dominant groups" and all the similar language in this policy is that these concepts do not promote or take account of the social mobility which is available through hard work and the use of talent and education. The notions of class and dominance assert that people are permanently stuck in their social circumstances of poverty and discrimination due to their class affiliation. The notion of Marxist class struggle which is implicit in this policy was never considered a way for individuals to become upwardly mobile in society. Rather, it was considered a way to overcome the so-called rule of the socially mobile over those who were subordinated by their class position. Therefore, these ideas as they exist in this policy contradict the very purpose of the policy, which we believe should be to enhance social mobility among students who are disadvantaged. It may be fashionable to introduce such Marxist language into documents such as this, but this language is not meaningless, and is not without profound effects in the development of attitudes and life plans among students, and in the way they will approach their relationships in future. Having said this, we certainly agree that meeting the goal of equity will require the redistribution of resources within the School system to meet identified needs for greater educational resources, and we applaud that. But the rationale for such redistribution is possible using liberal democratic language, such as "disadvantaged", "poor access to resources due to social circumstances", "enabling the full development of the individual student", language which is much more peaceful, promotes harmony and cooperation among people rather than political struggle, and promotes social mobility rather than conflict. CONCLUSIONThe Hamilton Wentworth Family Action Council agrees with much of this policy, and especially the way it will redistribute resources to schools which are at a disadvantage in meeting their mandate to support their students because of the higher needs of students in socioeconomically deprived areas of the City.However, the language and underlying Marxist ideology of the policy potentially establishes highly conflictual and hostile relationships between students and between social groups competing for resources. We believe that the introduction of this language, and the ideology which it represents, will actually contradict and undermine the goals of the policy to establish greater social mobility among students, and to establish harmonious and selfless social relationships between groups of students and their social counterparts. We believe that the goal of equity can be achieved by using the much more appropriate language of liberal democracy, and this ideology will enable the Board to carry out all the activities it currently plans to achieve these goals, without introducing the divisive and self-defeating language that it currently contains. Bob Maton, Ph.D. Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council June 2, 2005 |