In the March 14 edition of The Vancouver Courier, reporter Mark Hasiuk writes an opinion piece with a rather innocuous title: “Teacher-librarians react to book-banning effort in Vancouver schools.” No one should hardly be surprised by the headline; in fact, most BC residents with an at least basic understanding of schools and librarians would likely expect such a reaction from TLs. What is interesting, however, is the actual content of the article: where it goes—from A to B, title to conclusion—is an eyebrow-raising reminder of the multiple parties involved in the lives of teachers and (perhaps particularly or especially?) TLs.
As teachers working in a publicly-funded system, we are potentially involved with (is “responsible to” a too-dramatic phrase?) at least the following groups in our day-to-day work lives: students, parents, colleagues, administrators, custodians, our own District, the public in general…and part of that “public” are the media.
Hasiuk makes a point—in suggesting that more TLs be hired rather than paying more than half a million dollars for a District Diversity Team—that is, at first glance, engaging and seems sound. And in a narrow fashion, it is a sound point: in a Province that is not only comfortable with such self-styled superlatives as “The Best Place on Earth” but that—more relevant to this article—also in its 2006 strategic plan vowed to "Make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent," it would seem to follow that such money should be spent on making BC students more literate human beings. It is absolutely true that BC school boards are in desperate need of additional funding for TLs. But his point seems also to oversimplify the situation; it could just as easily be argued that the work of the Diversity Team and its “wave effect” on the content and delivery methods used by teachers has its own positive impact on students’ “literacy”—though perhaps a slightly different kind of literacy, a literacy that focuses more on social values and the ethical treatment of others. What is surprising to me, though, is the way in which Hasiuk approaches the situation: rather than discussing TLs and their reactions to book-banning (as, again, noted in the article’s title), he goes on to explain his personal feelings regarding what he sees as the hypocrisy of the District Diversity Team.
The issues raised in Hasiuk’s article and TL Moira Ekdahl’s response on her blog are intriguing on their own—diversity, social responsibility, public funding, book weeding, censorship issues, book banning—and together make this situation a nice little snapshot of a day in the life of a TL. But the content of my previous paragraph is noted only to be able to note this: it is astounding how the noble and well-intentioned mission of a TL (increasing student literacy levels) so quickly and so often becomes so much more—and so public! I recall with the golden glow of fond memories a statement from one of my wise teacher education professors at Seattle University: he said something like “Some people get into teaching with the idea that they will simply teach their subject, take care of the students, and that will be that—nothing else to worry about. But you can never escape the politics of teaching, and to do so would likely be to miss out on much and to actually be less effective in your work. So just as a head’s up: politics are involved, it is unavoidable—know this before you step into the classroom.” And he was, and is, right. So, the particular “day in the life of” one TL, Moria Ekdahl, serves as a sharp reminder that, as teachers—like it or not—you never know what kind of “politics” you might play on any given day, and which particular party you will play it with. But it happens, and it is good to be ready for it when it does.
One further note: the ubiquity of connectivity brought on by the internet in general and social media specifically, it should be noted, serves only to bring about more opportunity for interaction—both good and bad—with all the various stakeholders that teachers interact with. It is important to remember this fact, to remember that the technologies we use today can both be avenues for promoting our educational goals as well as avenues for “cluttering” or complicating our work lives. It is also, then, important to decide how to use technology in a way that—ideally—serves to help you in your work life more often than hinder you. (We must, I suppose, model a healthy and balanced approach to being digitally literate!).
[image attribution]
No comments:
Post a Comment