Christy Clark is the Premier of BC. Compare her visit to a visit to PRSS by Jinny Sims on the eve of the teachers’ strike in 2005, and her presentation to the class how the strike was the same kind of civil disobedience as Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus. It’s clear to me which one th district might take issue with.
The Premier makes appearances in public, it’s part of his or her job. When Adrian Dix wins, it will be part of his job. I don’t think it’s confusing or a contradiction that Christy Clark be allowed to read the Cat in the Hat to some kids… even if teachers don’t like it because things like their Charter shirts were deemed obviously wholey political and therefore not appropriate.
That’s not to say that maybe the district can be heavy handed, but given the political climate in Prince Rupert, can you blame them? The reality is that some teachers just don’t have the ability to separate their political feelings from discussions of politics in classrooms. The same objectivity isn’t a job requirement for the Premier.
Edit: For some reason I thought that the article meant she’d moved on from the school once she started talking about the dangers of NDP being elected–but the headline suggests it was all the same stop. If she was still in a classroom, then I’d agree it was inconsistent. Are any of those kids even close to voting age?
With all due respect, I have to take exception to this comment. The WEARING of the tshirt did not bring attention to Prince Rupert. The BANNING of the tshirt brought attention to Prince Rupert. No little kid starved for attention. The attention came as a result of the banning of a shirt which simply listed the charter of rights. Maybe that’s why we didn’t hear of other school districts where teachers wore the shirt.
The school district decided to ban the shirt because it was political messaging. And we can argue forever on that. But we are still not addressing the topic of this thread. If we are supposed to protect children from political messages that are (maybe) implied in the listing of the charter of rights, why aren’t we protecting them from the much more obvious political messaging of politicians using them as photo ops during highly political campaigns?
And eccentric you are correct IF - I want to emphasize IF - “some teachers just don’t have the ability to separate their political feelings from discussions of politics in classrooms”. There is no question that teachers have to be careful of what they say and how fairly they present information. I just don’t think wearing a shirt with the charter of rights listed on the back is crossing any line. Just like allowing politicians even a campaigning politicians to visit a school is crossing any line. But that’s just me.
Did we hear of other districts being told that they needed to remove their black T-shirts that had no messaging on them? I don’t remember hearing that.
Sure, I can concede that the attention came from the reaction from the board to the T-shirts with the messaging on them. Do you think that the shirts with the messaging were designed and worn with a premeditated notion that they would draw attention to an already tough area?
The banning of the shirt, as a result of the wearing of the shirt, as a result of the designing of the shirt with the outcome intended to draw attention back to Prince Rupert.
Do you think that the shirts with the messaging were designed and worn with a premeditated notion that they would draw attention to an already tough area?
The banning of the shirt, as a result of the wearing of the shirt, as a result of the designing of the shirt with the outcome intended to draw attention back to Prince Rupert.[/quote]
If you think the shirts were designed and worn to get the reaction that they did, then wouldn’t it have been best for the school board to ignore the wearing of such a shirt and deny these people the attention for Prince Rupert that you seem to think they crave. The message was benign. Adults are reading more into the message than is warranted.
But we are still avoiding the questions posed by the OP.
[quote=“teacher”]
Make of it what you will, but does it not raise the question: Why would the board allow this to happen, clearly a political event involving and affecting students, and at the same time make such a fuss about the Yertle the Turtle event? Does it make a difference which political message one is sending? Should it?[/quote]
The stated reason for the banning was to insulate students from political messaging. So, some people might think that neither the shirts nor campaigning politicians should be allowed in the school. Others, like myself, think both should be allowed in the school. I’m just having a hard time reconciling how one can allowed but not the other.
Sir Ryan of Last, Thank you again for your response. It appears that you are confused as are many in this situation. You agree that the Charter of Rights should be displayed. You agree that teachers should be allowed some leeway to protest (black t-shirts only) no display of the charter of rights (is this a political statement or a fashion statement?). You appear to agree in a healthy democratic exchange of ideas: but you appear to feel humiliated by the attention drawn to this situation and Prince Rupert. Understandably so: the province, Canada, and many around the world saw a violation of rights. The same rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights…that protect both society and the individual (whether or not that protection might cause embarrassment).
DWhite also make a very salient point: asking how students can be protected from ‘political messaging in the classroom’? (Or whether they need to be). He also made the point that none of this would have happened had the School District not reacted as it did to the situation - to enact a ban that limited ‘freedom of speech’.
My point: the School Board is making inconsistent decisions around political messaging. If the School District has no clearly defined, written policy that clearly states what political messaging is, criteria for defining how to decide if a message is political messaging and clear actions to be followed when the policy is violated and an appeal process. it may be acting in a arbitrary, unfair manner.It is my belief that the School District does not currently nor has it ever had a definition of political messaging.
DWhite: I know that this is an insufficient answer to your question, but until policy is in place there is nothing we can do other than demand it. When policy is in place: we have the general rights of an informed electorate. Vote to support, or vote to ensure that it is changed.
Bottom line: the School Board appears to be having issues around ‘political messaging’ and the budget. I believe it is time for the School Board to start making positive change for the sake of our students and community (I stated that in a previous post near the beginning of this thread)
Confused? Nope. Things are clear as day on my end. Are you confused?
Within the classroom, under the proper curriculum, for sure. Educate away. But that’s you twisting words again. Have you considered being a politician? NDP might be after a new rep in the next few years.
If the choice to wear the charter on black shirts to one-up the rest of the districts in B.C. during a silent protest was merely a fashion statement, then I tip my hat to them. But it wasn’t… so my hat will remain untipped.
Did you look around for a definition of policy for politics in our schools? Could it be something as cut and dry as “If it is political keep it out of the schools during working hours”?
[quote=“Sir Ryan of Last”]Confused? Nope. Things are clear as day on my end. Are you confused?
Within the classroom, under the proper curriculum, for sure. Educate away. But that’s you twisting words again. Have you considered being a politician? NDP might be after a new rep in the next few years.
If the choice to wear the charter on black shirts to one-up the rest of the districts in B.C. during a silent protest was merely a fashion statement, then I tip my hat to them. But it wasn’t… so my hat will remain untipped.
Did you look around for a definition of policy for politics in our schools? Could it be something as cut and dry as “If it is political keep it out of the schools during working hours”?[/quote]
Now I am confused. I don’t accept the fact that the wearing of a tshirt with the charter of rights listed on the back is any more political than the wearing of a plain black tshirt so really both should be allowed or both should be banned. But let’s assume that you are correct and the shirts are too political and “if it is political keep it out of the schools during working hours”.
But, if you accept that line of reasoning then you have to question a campaigning politician being allowed to enter a school for no other reason than for political purposes.
She was not there to announce anything from the government. She was there for no other reason than to use the kids as a backdrop for her campaign. It was all about political messaging. And way less subtle than the wearing of a tshirt or a quote from Dr. Seuss.
In other words, what exactly does the school district mean by political messaging? What is the policy? And is it being applied consistently?
Hell, even in the video it mentioned that the Liberals helped fund the new Port Edward Community School. She wasn’t there for the grand opening, could it be that she wanted to see what the money had turned into? Is that not even remotely possible or is it too over the top?
I do have to wonder if its not so much about politics in the classroom but about political protest in the classroom. Is a classroom the right venue for a teacher who is paid to teach the students to embark on a political protest or is that better suited elsewhere? It’s probably not so much that the Charter was referred to but in the context that it was delivered. Either way, in my opinion, it really was a harmless act and agree that attention was drawn to the issue after there was such a reaction to it by the board. Should the shirts have been worn in the first place? I’m not so sure but it really wasn’t that big of a deal.
[quote=“eccentric”]
Edit: For some reason I thought that the article meant she’d moved on from the school once she started talking about the dangers of NDP being elected–but the headline suggests it was all the same stop. If she was still in a classroom, then I’d agree it was inconsistent. Are any of those kids even close to voting age?[/quote]
It wasn’t in the classroom…it was in the municipal part of the building.
It is nice, in my old age, to have a place to repeat myself again and again…those close to me seem to appreciate it too - ‘you’re repetitively boring, go play with your computer’ is a phrase oft heard in my abode.
The issue is not who does the political messaging (Christy, Adrian, NDP, Liberal or Green), it is not where the political messaging takes place…school, municipal building, Civic Centre…it is that the School District does not, I believe, have a definition of political messaging in policy. Until they do, the political messaging message is really not very strong. I believe that at this point in time the School Trustees should strongly suggest to senior Administration that policy re: ‘political messaging be drafted asap’. Until that policy is in place the School Trustees are allowing Administrative whim to dictate what ‘political messaging’ is.
Protections (from political messaging, bullying, violence etc.) that are arbitrary, undefined, and randomly enforced are not protections.
I whole heartedly agree with the suggestion that the issue of transporting students to political messaging events - whether across the hall to the municipal part of a building…or across the town to another venue altogether should be part of the policy.
Time to go throw my lunch into a blender…thanks for listening.