Thursday, August 22, 2013

In Which I Reply to Ms. Redboots

My recent posts have drawn a bit of flack from some of my detractors, including the ubiquitous Anonymous. I have to say it I don't have much interest in engaging in a battle of "wits" with people of that level, and I actually miss the days when I used to spar with the most intellegent of my opponents, who goes by the name of Ms. Redboots.

I think the first time she got into the fray was when I was writing about how one of my professors, Lauralyn Cantor, had reported me to the Dean for making critical comments about another professor in an essay. Ms. Redboots was not sympathetic. She wrote:
Went back and read the linked article & the linked essay. Let's see-- as far as I can make out, you wanted the UofW to give you a teachers' certificate. You then proceeded to piss off most of your professors, write an essay for a course that was supposed to consist of self-reflection & instead took pot-shots at the assignment itself, the provincial math curriculum, another professor, and (for good measure)the president of the university-- and excused yourself by citing your ethnic connection with an iconoclast. Full marks for chutzpah; but no surprise that you were turfed from the course!
I've read this over a few times and I still can't get over it: she's "not surprised" that I got kicked out of the program for things that I wrote in an essay.

Shouldn't that bother her? Apparently not. These days it seems that people like Ms. Redboots take it for granted that to get through a professional program, you're supposed to curry favor with your professors by telling them what they want to hear. And they don't find anything wrong with that.

I remember when my son went to university a few years ago, and he complained that he had to write an essay where the professor expected him to say such-and-such. I told him he should write whatever he believed, and the professor would mark him on the quality of his arguments, regardless of whether she agreed with his opinion. My son didn't believe me...he said he would get a low mark if he didn't say what she wanted him to hear. I told him he was being ridiculous...that it didn't work that way.

Apparently it does.

If Ms. Redboots thinks that I was naive in thinking that I could get away with standing up for my beliefs, she may have a point. But I cannot see why she chooses to gloat over the fact that I was kicked out of school for doing so. It is people like her, and others who acquiesce to this kind of thing even though they should know better, who are as guilty as the professors in what happened to me.





 



16 comments:

  1. I don't think she saying that you got kicked out because of the essay. She's saying that the essay was a good indication of how the course as a whole was going. If in the essay, you're taking "pot shots" at the program, it's a good indicator that you're not being the most respectful or cooperative student in other areas either.

    And while it is wrong to ask your opinion, and dock you marks for it not being what the prof expected, it is expected that when you write an essay, it should be based on what the outline is looking for. An essay reflecting on your own personal educational experience and development should not diverge into a critique on the system and professors themselves.

    Imagine for a moment that you were to write an essay examining the Shakespearian play Hamlet, with the purpose of looking at character motivations and sanity. Instead, you write an essay on Shakespeare's motivation as a playwright, and the value of including Hamlet in the school curriculum. You did not do what was asked of you at all, and deserve a bad mark.

    Long story short, when it comes to an assignment, use whatever colours you want, but colour inside the lines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny you say "use whatever colours you want", and then down below you recall the "concept map" we worked on in Professor Bush's class. Do you remember how he said he gave everyone full marks, unless someone did something obviously wrong like using only one color of marker when there was a whole boxful of different colors available...?

      Yes, I was the one who got docked a mark because I did my whole concept map using a blue marker.

      Delete
    2. The person who recalled your concept map in Bush's class and the person who made the above comment are not the same person. Apologies for the confusion.

      Delete
    3. Alright then. To the person who said "you did not do what was asked of you, and you deserved a bad mark". I don't have a problem with the mark I got. (18/20 by the way). To the extent that I lose a few points for going my own direction on an assignment, I accept that. What I consider to be highly improper, malicious, and in fact downright stupid was that Professor Cantor chose to report me to the Dean for the contents of my essay.

      Delete
  2. Being the more negatively-inclined "Anonymous" from your more recent posts, I feel it necessary to clarify that it wasn't your posts, specifically, that "caught flak" from me, but, rather, the rather blind devotion of another anonymous commenter who seems to consider your legal proceedings to be some sort of moral crusade to defend the downtrodden and hard-done-by students. Having read your blog from the very beginning - including every legal document, essay, or attachment you've provided - I see it more as a way to justify your own right to due process (a justifiable pursuit) as well as your position in the education program that removed you (a shakier pursuit, in light of the nature of the content you posted as well as your conduct in class; your cooperating teacher's claims may or may not be true). While I wish you no ill during your legal battle, I do take exception to people eating up your posts and turning you into a martyr. It isn't you, specifically, that bothers me in that light, it's the notion of martyring anyone who is litigious. It's a personal gripe, and nothing more.

    At any rate, I can only go by what you have documented in your blog and in the legal materials you have provided (which included the claims brought against you by Gordon Bell). You'll have to excuse me if I assume that your posts are written so as to put yourself in at least a marginally better position. In other words, there is no compelling reason to believe that you're conveying an objectively true account of the events that led up to your removal from the program. Based on the claims against you (which, I must admit, could also be inflated, though I cannot think of a defensible position as to why), one must question your suitability to be a classroom teacher. Of particular concern is your apparent discomfort in being subordinate to other teachers or to the administration. As well, there was an occasion noted, in your statement of claims, that the students actually *wanted* you to return to covering the curriculum, rather than moving in your own direction. While the curriculum, in some places, is open to interpretation, I think it's reasonable to assume that, by grade 9, the students may actually have some idea of what they want or even need to learn. Being paternalistic in education, even if you truly know more than the students or even other teachers, is not the best policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Continued)

      On that note, what irked me most about your anonymous devotee is that he/she insists upon you flaunting your "intellectual superiority" (a subjective term, sorry) in front of other professors and expecting them to be perfectly fine with a show of one-upmanship. While I think, as former teachers, they ought to be as cool-headed in any situation as they can be, they are, at the end of the day, human. As are you. The world, unfortunately, functions with human vice - the need to be pandered to, the need to "play the game" in order to get ahead - these may be despicable things, but they happen. And not just in universities. Job interviews can be bastions of deceptions where applicants over-sell their abilities. Administrators often believe their ideas are the best around, even when unsubstantiated. These aren't invitations to begin upheaval. One can be non-compliant without being malicious or even overly vocal. I, for one, do not necessarily agree with the established science curricula I've had to teach. In fact, I find myself being employed to teach one that I could almost certainly state that I "detest". However, it is not up to me to decide what should or should not be taught to scores and scores of students. Not unless I can control what they will encounter in those disciplines in higher education, or in the workforce. I can change how I present that material and how I get the students involved, but, legally, I must meet the same outcomes. It's a system - and, yes, it unfortunately caters to those who are willing to play within the boundaries of that system. Those who have been in the system longer are accorded more respect, more responsibility, and, often, more pay. If you are not willing to climb the ladder in the same way - by putting in your time - you will not find the respect that, honestly, I think you deserve.

      On a somewhat related note, I enjoyed hearing your perspective in class. I regret that you had an apparent over-sensitivity that spun others' perspectives into attacks against you that were never intended. I recall a concept map in Prof. Bush's class discussing the nature of science, where group members were receptive to your ideas, but wanted their own represented as well. You left in a hurry interpreting that as being misunderstood/excluded when that wasn't the case. Similarly, attacking Bush about chemistry pedagogy when he has had decades of experience... did you expect that to develop into anything other than an argument? If I were to challenge your understanding of electrostatics, would you be as receptive to being undermined, or would you prefer a discussion with a less critical tone? Had discussions in class not devolved into arguments, would you have found the experience less meaningful for you? Moreover, did you ever feel receptive to hearing and seriously considering the ideas of your classmates?

      Delete
    2. (And the conclusion... pardon the long comment!)

      Every group activity in which you and I were in the same group was a great learning experience for me. Not because you had an "extreme personality" or other such rubbish. Rather, you had a unique perspective and you were definitely open about sharing it. Moreover, you always kept the discussion going. I do not believe, in those or in any other in-class scenarios, that anyone meant you any ill will or was privately dismissing you as anything derogatory. Your blog definitely paints a different picture, but coming from a person who was there, who engaged with you, and who paid attention to and attended every class, I am well aware of what I thought about you. It was never negative.

      I still stand by my assertion that you are not well-suited to teaching in a classroom setting, however. At least not during the early-through-senior years. That was never intended as an insult or a criticism, rather as an extension of your in-class conduct, of your relentless pursuit of litigation, and of the apparent discomfort in being subordinate to superiors within an organizational hierarchy.

      I wish we would have had a longer and more meaningful opportunity to become acquainted.

      Delete
  3. I don't get it. Aren't you the same Anonymous who said you wouldn't be comfortable working with me as a colleague or knowing that I was teaching children of "any age or any level of ability"? And accusing of "grossly unprofessional conduct" including manhandling children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feeling that the claims made against you suggest unsuitability for teaching does not mean feeling as if you're a bad person in any way. There is no hidden meaning behind the remark - it's merely an interpretation of the claims being leveled against you. Further, I only reiterated the claims your summarized in the statement you published on your blog (and just for clarification, I did not use the term "manhandling"; I used "laying hands on students", only because it's what I recall reading in your statement of claim. If that was not a correct recollection, I apologize).

      At any rate, it is possible for me (and, indeed, anyone) to respect you and, indeed, admire you as a classmate and fellow scholar, but to also recognize that there is, perhaps, a serious barrier to your potential certification as a Manitoba teacher (at least, based on the claims made against you, should they prove to be accurate).

      Let me reiterate, once more, that my comments on your other posts were not meant to attack you. Rather, they were a response to the rather blind idolization exhibited by another anonymous commenter. Surely you, more than anyone else in this discussion, understand the pitfall of buying into a train of thought without trying to step back and look at the bigger picture. Is it not better to be a skeptical observer, in a conflict, than a blind devotee? Isn't it a healthy amount of doubt that led you, personally, to begin these proceedings against the University of Winnipeg because you didn't simply accept what you were told without question?

      Please do not misinterpret my opinion of *you*, Marty. Claiming that the statements brought to bear against you suggest something lacking in the ability to be a "professional" teacher (at least according to the boundaries of professional conduct set forth in Manitoba) is neither intended as a criticism or as a personal attack. There are some definite requirements with respect to working with children (even adolescents bordering on the age of majority) that not everyone has (not even some certified teachers).

      As I said, I enjoyed being able to have discussions with you, though the opportunities were not as plentiful as I would have hoped (not to mention the fact that I was one of the more shy folks). I respect and admire you as a scholar and, formerly, fellow classmate. But that does not mean I need to concede that the claims are all false without evidence to the contrary.

      Tl;dr version: The disparity is in the fact that I respect you as a former classmate and fellow scholar, but that does not necessarily mean I have to consider you apt to act as a classroom teacher. This is not an attack, merely an observation and an opinion.

      Delete
  4. Okay, I think I remember you...pale complexion, skinny girl with frizzy hair...right? And that was you another time when I told Bush in a round-table discussion that I thought the people who wrote the curriculum were idiots, and later you said you thought I hurt his feelings...that was you, right?

    Now the round-faced guy who was in our concept chart project...he was a smart guy, one of the most capable guys in the class...but he didn't like me much. He was a real "team player", always siding with the powers-that-be. But maybe you don't remember all that...you weren't in the post-degree program with the rest of us, you were one of the regular five-year students who was with us to pick up a credit. So you only had that one class together with me. Am I remembering right?

    I'd like to revisit that concept chart program, because in some ways it was a microcosm of everything that happened to me in the program. I think I'll open a new blogpost tomorrow on that. Maybe afterwards you'll post what you remember about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, Marty, but I believe you've mistaken me for someone else. I was also definitely not an integrated student. Most certainly, I was in the after-degree program and, as such, was in several classes with you.

      Delete
  5. You are missing the point. How can you say Marty would not make a good teacher, he was not even given a chance to teach. His practicum was ended before it even started. You have NO basis for your claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being a teacher requires more than just the ability to conduct lessons.

      Believe me, I wish it were not the case, but it involves the ability to subordinate yourself to policies, "superiors" (usually a department head and an admin team), and to legal mandates wrapped around the curriculum.

      Delete
  6. I repeat again-he was not even allowed to begin his practicum, it was ended for him. He did not have an opportunity to display his
    "...ability to subordinate (himself) to policies, "superiors" (usually a department head and an admin team), and to legal mandates wrapped around the curriculum."
    So how can you say he wouldn't have done these things when he wasn't even given the chance? Well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you not read the statement of claim that he posted ages ago...?

      Delete