The Radical Left Needs to Call into Question Existing Social Institutions at Every Opportunity, Part Four

Before I obtained a so-called permanent teaching position (I will explain in a much later post why I use the word “so-called”), I worked for a number of years as a substitute teacher (with short periods of term teaching positions). I became an executive member of the Winnipeg Teachers’ Association (WTA) (in the province of Manitoba, Canada), representing substitute teachers.

I used this situation as an opportunity to criticize the limitations of the educational experience.

Of course, representatives should not limit themselves to such criticism but rather perform their representative function in order to enhance the democratic nature of the union or association to which they belong. To that end, I referred to issues and clauses in the collective agreement that were relevant to substitute teachers as well as to the Substitute Teachers’ Committee.

I and others on the Substitute Teachers’ Committee created a survey for substitute teachers and used the results of such a survey to criticize the policy of the WTA of permitting only permanent teachers the right to apply for permanent positions (substitute teachers paid association dues and consisted of usually 700-900 paying members of around 4000 members, but they did not have the right to apply for permanent positions).

 

For October 2007 newsletter

In the last letter to the editor, it was pointed out that education unites the end (as an ideal) with the means, and the means with the end (as actual result). The question that needs to be posed is what the implications for such a view of the nature of education are. Human beings are, by nature, more concerned with the ends as final result than with the means required to reach the end. This assertion has its basis in the biological nature of humans as living beings. Unlike inanimate beings, all living beings, as living beings, require to maintain their existence through action on the environment. Their own nature is to seek to maintain themselves as living beings through such action. The end of their action is the maintenance of life, and in that sense human nature, as a part of the living process, is no different.

If human beings naturally focus more on ends than means, then the education process must shift children’s focus to the means required to achieve ends as well as providing conditions for children to learn how to coordinate the ends and means in conjugate relation with each other. The education process should begin with the ends of children, but should end with the children being capable of coordinating ends and means in an increasingly broader and more profound manner. The question that must be asked

In elementary schools, does the learning process begin with the ends of children and gradually shift focus to the means necessary to achieve specific ends? Is the curriculum designed to achieve the harmony between, on the one hand, the nature of children as beings who focus mainly on the ends of activities and the requirements of the subject matter, which are primarily means?

In secondary schools, with a greater focus on specialized studies, have the curriculum designers consciously incorporated into the structure of the curriculum provisions for enabling children, for a time, to consider consciously and willingly the study of specialized studies as ends in themselves? Do children, subsequently, learn to coordinate the learning of the specialized studies (which are refined forms of the experiences of human beings and constitute more generalized means for the achievement of diverse ends) with their own ends?

Can teachers, who are responsible for pedagogical execution, engage in education effectively if the curriculum structure prevents a shift from ends to means and then to their coordination? In other words, are pedagogical methods (such as differentiated instruction) sufficiently powerful to compensate for a curriculum structure that fails to address the necessary connection between means and ends?

Fred Harris, substitute teacher

The following appeared in the Winnipeg Teachers’ Association newsletter to explain how the survey of the substitute teachers was constructed:

Draft Results of Survey Held at General Meeting of Substitute Teachers, October 11 General Meeting and Survey

On October 11 a general meeting of substitute teachers was held to elect representatives to the Council. At the time of elections, there were 33 eligible voters, including myself.

At the meeting, the substitute teachers present were asked to fill out a survey proposed by the Substitute Teachers Committee and approved by the executive; 91 percent of those who could vote did fill out the survey—an excellent response rate.

Structure of the Survey

The survey was divided into four sections, with the fourth section asking whether the substitute teacher is retired or not. I therefore will present the general results in two ways: percentages in terms of those substitute teachers who are not retired for the first three sections and percentages in terms of those who are retired for the final section. I will begin with substitute teachers who are not retired.

First Section of Survey: How Long Substitutes Have Been Substituting

The first section refers to the period of time for substitute teaching. Forty-six percent of substitute teachers are short-term (0-3 years); 19 percent are mid-term (4-9 years); and 35 percent are long-term substitute teachers (10+ years).

This last statistic should give us pause for thought. Substitute teaching may have become a career for one-third of substitute teachers.

It may be said that these statistics are skewed. They undoubtedly are. To overcome such bias, it would be necessary to have a list of all substitute teachers in the WTA, either to survey them all or to survey substitute teachers on a random basis.

Second Section: Priorities of Substitute Teachers and Possible Problems

The second section of the survey looks at possible areas of concern to substitute teachers, and each has a rating of 1 for least important and 10 for most important. In this report, I will focus only on what the substitute teachers considered to be the three most important concerns, with the distribution as follows:

The number one concern of substitute teachers is the lack of a right to apply for posted positions, followed by salary and benefits.

Given that the lack of a right to apply for posted positions is the number one concern of substitute teachers, and given that the policy of the WTA is to uphold the Division’s policy of prohibiting substitute teachers and term teachers from being considered for permanent hire on the grounds that permitting substitute teachers access to job postings would decrease mobility among permanent contract teachers, then there is a potential conflict between the interests of substitute teachers and permanent contract teachers within the WTA. Some may say that such a view that recognizes a possible conflict of interest between two different sets of members is divisive. However, as the philosopher of education, John Dewey, pointed out, it is necessary to make explicit conflicts if we are to solve them. Human beings in this society are commodities, things to be bought and sold. There is competition among workers in such a situation. To the extent that there are a limited number of permanent contract positions relative to the supply of teachers, then there will be competition, and that competition may lead to conflict among workers, unless there is a mechanism that regulates and reduces that competition in some fashion.

If substitute teachers want to have access to job postings, and the WTA policy is to exclude them from such access, is there not a conflict? If there is a conflict, what is to be done about it?

Third Section: Economic Importance of Substitute Teaching for Substitutes

The third and last section refers to the extent to which substitute teaching is economically important to the substitute teachers. Fifty percent of them rely primarily on substitute teaching within the Division for their economic livelihood. Sixty-five percent of the substitute teachers primarily rely on substitute teaching, term teaching or a combination of the two within the WSD. In other words, about two-thirds mainly rely economically on employment with WSD.

Fourth Section: Retired Teachers as Substitute Teachers

For retired teachers, there is no pattern for sections one and three, perhaps due to the very small sample size. For section two, their top priority is benefits, followed by the lack of a right to apply for positions (with the qualification that 50 percent of the retired substitute teachers indicated their solidarity with non-retired substitute teachers and not for themselves).

In addition, I drafted the substitute teachers’ concerns to the Council (a monthly meeting of school representatives and the executive of the WTA):

Draft Report of Fred Harris, Chair, Substitute Teachers’ Committee, to Council, October 16 [2007]

On October 11, last Thursday, a general meeting of substitute teachers was held to elect representatives to this Council. At the time of elections, there were 33 eligible voters, including myself. Dave provided an overview of how Council works before the elections. Two people were elected to Council, Linda Kirkwood and Fred Standil. After the elections, Dave addressed some of the possible concerns that I had raised, and Henry followed by some of my other concerns. The question period that followed was very lively, especially around the issue of why the Division has implemented a policy of forcing substitute teachers to provide a reason why they are refusing jobs and stopping the computer system from calling them after three or four refusals.

At the meeting, the substitute teachers present were asked to fill out a survey proposed by the Substitute Teachers Committee and approved by the executive; 91 percent of those who could vote did fill out the survey.

I will divide my report of the survey in two: firstly, I will provide an overview of the results of the survey using descriptive statistics, not inferential statistics. Inferential statistics might be useful, but the sample size may be too small. Secondly, I will comment on the number of substitute teachers who attended.

The survey was divided into four sections, with the fourth section asking whether the substitute teacher is retired or not. I therefore will present the general results in two ways: those substitute teachers who are not retired and those who are retired. I will begin with substitute teachers who are not retired.

The first section refers to the period of time for substitute teaching. The percentage of non-retired substitute teachers who have substituted without a permanent contract for 0 to 3 years is 43 percent, for 4-6 years, 17 percent, for 7-9 years, 3 percent, for 10-12 years, 17 percent and 13 years or more, 17 percent. We can streamline this a bit by providing three categories: 43 percent of substitute teachers are short-term (0-3 years); 20 percent are mid-term (4-9 years); and 34 percent are long-term substitute teachers (10+ years).

This last statistic should give us pause for thought. Substitute teaching may have become a career for one-third of substitute teachers.

It may be said that these statistics are skewed. They undoubtedly are. To overcome such bias, it would be necessary to have a list of all substitute teachers in the WTA, either to survey them all or to survey substitute teachers on a random basis, with a smaller sample size than the total number of substitute teachers but with a larger sample size than the 30 responses that we obtained.

The second section of the survey looks at possible areas of concern to substitute teachers, and each has a rating of 1 for least important and 10 for most important. In this report, I will focus only on what the substitute teachers considered to be the most important concerns in five cases, with the distribution as follows:

The number one concern of substitute teachers is the lack of a right to apply for posted positions, followed by salary and benefits, and two further priorities: firstly, cancellation of a position when arriving at school and, secondly, the extent to which there is a lack of information, clarity or support concerning disciplinary procedures within schools for disruptive student behaviour.

Given that the lack of a right to apply for posted positions is the number one concern of substitute teachers, and given that the policy of the WTA is to uphold the Division’s policy of prohibiting substitute teachers and term teachers from being considered for permanent hire on the grounds that permitting substitute teachers access to job postings would decrease mobility among permanent contract teachers, then there is a potential conflict between the interests of substitute teachers and permanent contract teachers within the WTA. Some may say that such a view that recognizes a possible conflict of interest between two different sets of members is divisive. However, as the philosopher of education, John Dewey, pointed out, it is necessary to make explicit conflicts if we are to solve them. Human beings in this society are commodities, things to be bought and sold. There is competition among workers in such a situation. To the extent that there are a limited number of permanent contract positions relative to the supply of teachers, then there will be competition, and that competition may lead to conflict among workers, unless there is a mechanism that regulates and reduces that competition in some fashion.

If substitute teachers want to have access to job postings, and the WTA policy is to exclude them from such access, is there not a conflict? If there is a conflict, what is to be done about it?

The third and last section, which refers to the extent to which substitute teaching is economically important to the substitute teachers, presented a few problems. My intent was to have the substitute teachers check off one, and only one, choice. Six of the replies contain more than one check mark. Rather than excluding them, I have attempted to categorize them into only one of the categories, according to my interpretation of the intent of their answer.

Sixty-five percent of the substitute teachers primarily rely on substitute teaching, term teaching or a combination of the two within the WSD. In other words, about two-thirds mainly rely economically on employment with WSD. Furthermore, fifty percent of them rely primarily on substitute teaching for their economic livelihood.

For retired teachers, there is no pattern for sections one and three, perhaps due to the very small sample size. For section two, their top priority is benefits, followed by the lack of a right to apply for positions (with the qualification that 50 percent of the retired substitute teachers indicated their solidarity with non-retired substitute teachers and not for themselves) and, finally, the extent to which there is a lack of information, clarity or support concerning disciplinary procedures within schools for disruptive student behaviour

Turning now to the number of substitute teachers who attended the meeting, as I said, there were 33 eligible voters, but this number is about five percent of the substitute teachers on the substitute list in the Division.

One undoubted factor in limiting the number of substitute teachers who attended was a lack of a list of substitute teachers. Last year, however, at about this time, about 80 substitute teachers attended the general meeting. A drop of about 100 percent in the attendance of substitute teachers cannot be explained by a lack of a list of substitute teachers since there was no list available to the Substitute Teachers’ Committee last year either. Furthermore, in other organizations—such as unions—where there exists a current list of all members, attendance at union meetings frequently is only 10 percent of the number of members.

It may be said that the substitute teachers—or other union members—freely chose to not attend. They individually chose to not attend. Ultimately, it is an individual decision, for it is not an abstraction called an organization or society that decides, but a group of individuals.

I use the word “ultimately,” however. It is individuals who decide, but their decision ought to be made on the basis of an informed understanding of their situation.

My hypothesis of why many substitute teachers would not attend even if they knew about the gen4eral meeting is that they see little point in it: it does not, from their point of view, contribute to their control over their own lives. They lack hope in changing their lives.

Let me explain by way of illustration. I am writing my doctoral dissertation on a comparison of John Dewey’s philosophy of education and Paulo Freire’s philosophy of education. Freire was a Brazilian educator of adults, and he wrote, among works, Pedagogy of the Oppressed and A Pedagogy of Hope. In those works, he noted how adults would blame themselves for their poverty, including the literal starvation to death of their children, rather than the extreme concentration of the ownership of land, machinery, buildings and so forth among around two percent of the population.

Freire too argues that, ultimately, it is individuals who decide, but decisions that exclude a consideration of the social and economic context within which the individuals live are not free decisions. The educational task, for Freire, is to have people understand their own social situation so that they can make informed decisions. In other words, education is to develop their own capacities to be self-determining human beings.

Relating this now to a lack of turnout among substitute teachers, it is a defeatist attitude to use the lack of participation by adults in an organization as an excuse to do nothing about such a lack of participation. The reality is indeed that there is a lack of participation by substitute teachers in this organization. But present reality has two sides to it: the actualization of the potentialities of the past, and the potentialities of the present which may actualized in the future. To restrict reality to merely the actualization of past potentialities limits what human beings can do and limits the educational task. To expand reality to include the potentialities of the present opens up what Freire called the untested feasibility, or a pedagogy of hope.

If the reality which we experience does not accord with what we would like, then we need to look at the potentialities of that reality to see whether we can change reality by actualizing other potentialities and by eliminating those aspects of reality which cause us problems.

I suspect—and it is only an hypothesis—but an hypothesis based on my conversations with a number of substitute teachers and others over the years—that one of the main—though by no means the only—reasons why substitute teachers and others do not participate is their lack of hope for any real change to occur as a result of their participation. They see no point in it. They have lost hope of gaining control over their own lives.

To change that situation, as a start, I would strongly urge all Council representatives here present to ensure that substitute teachers have access, on a monthly basis, to the WTA newsletter as far as possible, whether via mailbox, posting on the bulletin board in the staff lounge or by some other method. It is my understanding that an extra copy of the newsletter is provided to each Council representative, so what I am requesting is feasible. Admittedly, this is a small step, but any change requires initial steps. The newsletter could become a more important means by which to enlist the participation of substitute teachers—and indeed permanent contract teachers—in this Association.

Apparently, there was some controversy whether the above report was going to be censored or not (I did not remember this when I searched for my work as the chair of the Substitute Teachers’ Committee of the WTA):

There may be several aspects of the article to which the Public Relations Committee and this executive find objectionable. I will try to address what I think might raise concerns.

I will justify the article in my own way and not on conventional grounds. I would like to hear others’ grounds for objecting to the article.

At the general meeting of substitute teachers, on October 11, what I heard gave me the distinct impression that the WTA supports the WSD policy of excluding substitute teachers from the right to apply for the blue sheets because such exclusion enables permanent contract teachers to have greater mobility within the Division. If that impression is mistaken, then of course my references to such support need to be deleted, starting with “Given…” and ending with “about it.”

If, however, it is the position that the WTA supports the WSD policy, then I will defend my inclusion of the two paragraphs stated above. Before going on, then, it is necessary to ask whether my impression that the WTA supports the WSD policy of limiting those who can apply for the blue sheets to permanent contract teachers is valid. Is it?

Firstly, the issue is one of the importance of conflict. According to Dewey’s philosophy of education, indirectly found in his book (Experience and Nature),1 the life process is, by its very nature, conflictive.

Conflict involves the rhythm of being in balance with the world and falling out of balance (a rhythm which forms a basis for music and various forms of art, incidentally: Art as Experience. The great works of art include various contrasting and clashing elements that are organized to form a harmony or unified structure]. The life process involves dependence on something external to the live being but something which it requires or needs. The live being satisfies its needs, and is in harmony with its environment. But satisfaction is always only temporary because either the living being uses up what it needs or the environmental conditions change. There is then conflict between the living being and its environment.

In the case of human beings, what is unique is that they, unlike non-human animals, can share experiences, or engage in a unified action towards a common end. To share such experiences, they must be able to express their views, which may indeed and indeed probably does involve conflicting views since different individuals have different experiences in life.

Variation of views, and hence conflicting views, should not only be permitted but is necessary if progress is to occur.

This conflict, in the case of humans, enables them to grow or to learn through the incorporation of conflicting elements in a larger whole. Education, then, is a process of learning how to deal with conflicting situations and how to create a wider situation that incorporates the conflicting elements in that larger whole.

If we hide conflicts, we will not be able to grow nor educate ourselves, both as living beings and as human beings.

The form in which the growth or education of human beings best occurs is through the democratic form. That form is a means by which human beings can develop and grow.

This view borrows from the Darwinian theory of evolution, about which Dewey wrote extensively.

Or perhaps reference to the idea that human beings are commodities, things to be bought or sold is inappropriate. Empirically, it can be shown that human beings are indeed commodities in many countries, including Canada. I had my daughter take a picture of the following on a sign just a block from the Museum of Manitoba: “Need Workers? We will deliver them.” Admittedly, this is an extreme example of treating human beings as commodities, but it is only an extreme of a common-day occurrence in our lives: the purchase of human beings on the market for workers.

In Canada, that market began to form around 1826, when the British government ended land grants, obliging Irish immigrants in what was then Upper Canada to sell their skills (or lack of skills) to others to construct the canals. (I have a book in my office, I believe, that refers to that fact). In the United States, a market for workers began to form rapidly near the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century when the push toward the West ended with no more free land.

The case of Guatemala is instructive in this regard. Before 1954, the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz distributed the unused land of the United Fruit Company to about 500,000 Guatemalan families. The CIA helped overthrow his government and install a military dictatorship. The best land was returned to the wealthy landowners, and the Guatemalan peasants had to eek out a living on small land plots in the unfertile lands of the mountainous regions. Having insufficient land to maintain their families, they had to migrate to the coastal plantations of the wealthy landowners to produce bananas, coffee, beef and other export commodities. In the 1970s, however, the Guatemalan peasants, who were largely Aboriginals, began to organize against the wealthy landowners. They objected to being treated as commodities and wanted sufficient land to maintain their families. The Guatemalan military, with the help of the American government, responded by systematically terrorizing and killing tens of thousands of Guatemalans and creating more than a million internal and external refugees.

This situation is interesting since it indicates that when human beings do object to being treated as commodities, the government will often be used to ensure that the market for workers will be maintained.

Once that market is created, of course, as it is in Canada, then the economic dependence of workers on the employers will generally suffice to maintain that relation without resort to physical violence.

It may be objected, however, that even if there is a market for workers, human beings freely enter into contractual relations with employers. However, at the end of the Second World War, about half the working population still were not employees. Many owned farms or had their own business. Today only 10 to 20 percent of those who work are not employees. Did anyone freely choose to become employees? Or did it just work out that way in the development of the economy?

Now, as I indicated in an article that was published by this Association, employees are extensions of the will of the employer—they are means to the ends defined by the employers. You may not agree with that proposition, but why not then respond to it in the newsletter by providing an alternative hypothesis?

Coming now to the issue of substitute teachers, Joan once said that she was tired of hearing that substitute teachers are badly treated or something to that effect. She indicated that we are all members of the same organization. That is true. As members of the same organization, we should be treated in the same way. However, that does not mean that substitute teachers should necessarily all have the same rights as permanent contract teachers. A basic principle of political philosophy is that all should be treated the same unless there are differential conditions for treating some differently from others. And there are differential conditions, at least in the case of substitute teachers who are relatively new. Would it be fair, for instance, that permanent contract teachers, who by definition generally expect to work for the same employer for years, be reduced to the same rights as a beginning substitute teacher? Attachment to a particular employer for an increasing length of time forms the basis for privileging permanent teachers over substitute teachers, just as the principle of seniority does in unions.

However, as substitute teachers are engaged in employment with the same employer for an increasing length of time, the grounds for differential treatment become less and less valid.

Of course, the reported statistics do indicate that there is a substantial percentage of substitute teachers who have been employed by the Division for a number of years. Their exclusion from any consideration of whether they can apply for positions is less valid than the exclusion of shorter term substitute teachers. Of course, the exact cut off line is not easy to define, but the issue is first of all whether all substitute teachers should be banned from applying for positions. Perhaps there are counterarguments which justify such exclusion, and I would like to hear such arguments.

A further consideration is the issue of formal democracy versus living democracy, or democracy through formal rules, policies and procedures and democracy as a way of life. Dewey provided two criteria for distinguishing between formal and living democracy in his masterpiece Democracy and Education: “How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of association?” The first criterion indicates that there should be many interests which tie the lives of individuals together and not just one. It also means that there are varied interests which, despite being varied, are integrated into the organization. It is difficult to see how consciously shared interests can occur if apparently conflicting interests cannot even be recognized. The basic condition for the harmony of conflicting interests to arise is recognition that a problem in fact exists. Indeed, Dewey, in his masterful Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, argues exactly that: that recognition that a problem exists is the first step in resolving the problem.

Without such recognition, no adequate solutions can arise. It is also hard to see how the second criterion can be fulfilled if we restrict the identification and solution to problems to standing committees, the executive and even to the Council. These are organizational bodies that are formal means to the end of living democracy, which is the active participation of all members, as far as possible, in this organization. Indeed, Dewey’s Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, implicitly contains a criticism of formal democracy by criticizing formal logic, which assumes that logical rules, procedures and policies emerge independently of the process of inquiry. Similarly, he criticizes formal democracy, which merely emphasizes procedural rules without recognizing that such rules are means to an end and not ends in themselves. Furthermore, such rules are rules of a process and not independent of that process. They emerge as regulative conditions of the process so that the process can function smoothly. Such rules and the organizational forms that emerge to enforce them do not have—or should not have—any substantive independence. They are functions of a process and not substitutes for it.

1 It is an excellent but difficult book.

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Seven: The New Brunswick History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

Since the pdf curriculum document is not searchable, I have read through the document with an eye for key words: employ, work, class, capital (and their derivates).

On page 3, under the title Inclusion of Social History, there is a reference to the theme of the working class.

On page 9, it states the following: “Role playing of characters from any era in Canadian history, including those who displayed an entrepreneurial spirit and initiative in our past, can allow the student to become aware of the legacy that is to be followed in the future.”

Page 29 perhaps provides a brief opportunity for exploring the origin of employers and employees–although it is unlikely since the focus is different: “Students should examine the motives of the following groups for western expansion: … The Hudson’s Bay Company.”

On page 35, it is mentioned how technology changed rural and urban life–without any mention of who owned and controlled the technology and who had the power to introduce it into the workplace and why.

Page 36 refers to the changing role of women since they started working in manufacturing and its impact on the family, but there is no mention of why women would work for an employer in the first place.

On page 37, the second unit begins, with the title 1896-1920: Canada’s Century Begins, with the first section entitled Immigration and Imperialism. Since the concept of imperialism is connected to capitalism and the power of the class of employers, perhaps this section will bear some fruit about why employers and employees exist. Unfortunately, on the same page it is claimed that modern society is pluralistic–not a very promising view since pluralism considers there to be no dominant classes.

On the following page, it states:  “Although industrialization allowed business and industrial growth, poverty for the lower classes and segregation of the social and ethnic classes eventually led to labour unrest.” There is hence some promise of explaining the origin and nature of the employer and employee relation, but it is hedged about by the terms “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes.” There is no explanation of the meaning of those terms. It is unlikely that a teacher would interpret the term “poverty” as “having to work for an employer;” rather, s/he is likely to interpret the term in terms of level of income exclusively. And it is implied that if “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes” had not occurred, there would be no labour unrest.

This limitation then probably spills over into one of the suggested activities: “Summarize, in order of importance, the changes in Canadian society due to industrialization and urbanization,. [Note the lack of reference to the dual change of the emergence of a class of employers who owned the conditions for producing our lives and the emergence of another class of employees who lacked ownership of those conditions and who consequently had to work for the class of employers.] What were the major tensions and social divisions caused by this? [The implication was that it was not the emergence of a class of employers and a class of employees which resulted in “major tensions and social divisions,” but the “neutral” process of industrialization and urbanization. Who however made the decisions to industrialize in the first place? And did not the rural population move into urban areas in search of “jobs” when they lacked the means of producing their own lives?]

On page 39, reference to imperialism is to British imperialism, and no connection is drawn between imperialism and the drive of employers to accumulate capital, which spills over national borders in one way or another. In other words, the term imperialism lacks any reference to its foundation in the class of employers and the class of employees.

On page 64, despite one of the expected outcomes being an understanding of the causes and consequences of the Great Crash of 1929 and the subsequent economic depression, there is no mention of the irrational nature of the economic system called capitalism, with a class of employers dominating a class of employees, and with a drive to obtain more and more profit as the ultimate goal, as being a cause on the corresponding pages 45-46.

In general, then, the New Brunswick history curriculum provides the student and teacher with little opportunity for understanding how and why employers and employees emerged in the first place and why students will, in all likelihood, be working for an employer (unless, of course, they aim to transform the economy into an economy controlled by workers and communities).

The document is another expression of silent indoctrination by what it omits. It is an ideological document and does students a disservice by not enabling them to understand what they experience and why they experience what they experience.

 

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Six: The British Columbia and the Yukon Territory History Curriculum and Their Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

The Yukon Territory uses the same curriculum as B.C., so the following is relevant for it. The B.C. Grade 12 history curriculum has very little that would guide a teacher or student in answering the question. Using the search term “employ” results in zero hits. The use of the search term “work” resulted in a reference to the U.S. temporary incorporation of women into the workforce during the First World War (page 49). On page 67, students are asked to estimate what the percentage of women are in the workforce today.

The use of the search terms “class” and “capital” yielded nothing of relevance. The occasional reference to capitalism, like most of the other curricula documents, do not really provide an opening for the teacher and students to explore why and how employers and employees exist.

In the grades 10 and 11 social studies curricula, using all four search terms yielded only one reference to class conflict on page 27 of the grade 10 social studies curriculum in relation to the 1837-1838 rebellion. Apparently, human beings have always been employers or employees—or so the curriculum designers assume. For them, a course on history should not include the historical emergence of the relation of employers and employees and the associated historical conditions that constitute the preconditions for such a relation.

Generally, then, the curricula on Canadian history so far researched fail to prepare students in understanding their likely fate as workers in Canada. Is this silence an accident? Or does the silence reflect a class bias by the authors of such curricula? If it reflects a class bias, is it not an example of social injustice? Why are the voices of workers and their subordination to the power of employers not a central feature of Canadian history curricula? Is such silence a further example of the injustice characteristic of the school system? Are students not being indoctrinated into accepting their future subordination to the power of employers by silencing the history of how and why employers and employees arose?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Five: The Alberta, Northwest Territories and Nunavut History Curriculum and Their Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

Given that the Nunavut and Northwest Territories history (social studies) curriculum follows the Alberta curriculum, the following is relevant for Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

The Alberta curriculum has two aspects to the grade 12 social studies curriculum: 30-1 deals with perspectives on ideology and 30-2 deals with understandings of ideologies.

Using the search term “employ,” I came up with zero relevant hits. The same result applies to the grade 11 curriculum: 20-1 is Perspectives on Nationalism and 20-2 is Understandings of Nationalism. In the grade 10 social studies curriculum, which consists of 10-1: Perspectives on Globalization and 10-2 Living in a Global World, there is only one relevant hit: students are to examine the impact of globalization on employment issues; it is unlikely that the issue of why work assumes the form of the employer-employee relation would be addressed given the lack of concern for such an issue in the other provincial curricula.

Using the search term “work” resulted only in one hit in all three curricula—in a negative sense of referring to research skills that prepare students for the world of work—without specifying the existence of employers and employees as aspects of work in modern capitalist relations. The curriculum designers evidently did not consider it necessary to explain the emergence of the employer-employee relation; they presupposed its existence—as do many intellectuals. Both the curriculum designers and many intellectuals lack critical thinking skills.

Using the search term “class,” I found, on pages 20 and 32 of 30-1 and 30-2, respectively, a reference to class in the context of exploring themes of ideology, and class system on pages 21 and 33 of 30-1 and 30-2, but that is all. Although there exists a possibility for exploring the question, such a possibility is very remote since there is no elaboration of what the inquiry would involve. It is doubtful that the authors of the curriculum even thought about it.

Using the search term “capital,” on pages 21 and 33 of 30-1 and 30-2, respectively, there is a reference to laissez-faire and welfare capitalism, but again without elaboration. On page 25 of 30-2, there is a reference to capitalism, but it is conjoined with the term democratic, and claims that they are linked to the values of individualism and liberalism. Many employees, however, have experienced the opposite: the suppression of their individuality as they are required to follow the rules and orders of representatives of employers. As for liberalism—the concentration of wealth indicated above in the Saskatchewan curriculum indicates the extent of liberalism characteristic of modern capitalist relations in Canada (and throughout the world).

These curriculum documents express more the ideology of the capitalist class than they do the working class since they are silent about the experiences of the working class as employees and, indeed, as a class in opposition to the power of the class of employers.

The left in Ontario has not remained silent about Ontario conservative premier Doug Ford’s backwards move of rejecting a revised sex-ed curriculum and the reversion to a 1998 sex-ed curriculum. However, it has remained silent over the indoctrination which occurs in the history curricula of various provinces. Why is that?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Four: The Saskatchewan History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of  previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum.   The background to the post is provided in that first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

The Saskatchewan curriculum, though it is a pdf file, is non-searchable. Consequently, I contacted Brent Toles, of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, and he recommended that I look at units two and five of the Canadian Studies 30—History curriculum, unit two of Canadian Studies 30—Social Studies curriculum and unit two of Social Studies 10. Since my methodology involves limiting the research, as far as possible, to the Canadian history curriculum, I limited the non-computer-assisted search to units two and five of Canadian Studies 30. I did not, of course, use the regular search terms, but scanned the two units for any relevant material that may answer the research question.

The history curriculum contains little that would enable students to answer the question. In the nineteenth century, much of it has to do with the realization of a Canadian nation, with references to the national economy without any qualification as to the kind of economy it was becoming. There is reference to interest groups on page 206, and the possibility of variable influence, but the kinds of interest groups (such as employers or trade unions) is left unspecified. On page 210, it is noted that York, Montreal and Hamilton grew as people migrated there in search of employment in expanding manufacturing. No reference to exploring why workers would migrate (the conditions for workers to migrate in the sense referred to is the deprivation of independent means for survival—the formation of a working class) and no reference to exploring the conditions for such an expansion of employment (the creation of a capitalist class, or a class that owns and controls the means or conditions for workers to work and hence to live) is provided.

An implicit naturalistic explanation of why workers worked for employers is offered when it is noted that the Canadian Shield did not offer the best land for immigrants to become farmers. Some French Canadians migrated to New England to work in factories or worked in lumber camps or sawmills in the Canadian Shield. Who owned the camps and mills and why they did so is not even mentioned. Of course, a teacher who already knows the history of employer-employees relations could guide students, but since there is general silence about the historical origins of either class, it is unlikely that teachers would bring up the subject.

On page 212, there is a reference to Montreal’s business elite, but there is no explanation or reference for further exploration of how and why they became the business elite. On page 217, there is a reference to economic interests possibly forming the basis for influence, but what “economic interests” means is left vague. On page 219, there is a reference to regional economic power as the basis for national influence, and there is a reference to the government awarding contracts that influence levels of employment and industries in a region, but the issue of why and how employers emerged in Canada is simply ignored. On page 232, there is a reference to one of the problems with open voting, where a voter had to declare their preference openly: employers often coerced employees into voting according to their will. Why employers were not subject to the democratic process of control by workers is not even hinted at. (Indeed, if employers were subject to direct democratic control by workers they would not be employers at all since employers by their very nature have to have dictatorial powers over employees—the curriculum writers implicitly avoid having students explore the specific kind of property relations characteristic of the employer-employee relation and the power employers have over employees.)

On page 234, it is noted that the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association was created in 1874 and that employers employed 180,000 employees in manufacturing in 1871. There is no suggestion of exploring why and how they could employee so many workers. It is noted that they form a powerful “interest group,” but a group that daily controls the lives of 180,000 workers is more than just a powerful interest group. It is a class that dictates, on a daily basis, the lives of the working class for the purpose of ever accumulating profit.

On page 242, the authors note that powerful manufacturing interests supported national railway development and that the CPR was granted, among other things, exemption from paying taxes. There is a possibility for some exploration of how and why such powerful manufacturing interests arose, but it is hardly a focal point. The same could be said of the reasons why the CPR would be granted exemption from paying taxes. On page 244, the authors express their fetishistic understanding of the nature of capitalist relations by claiming that, in order to build the railway, it was necessary to import both capital and labour. Since capital is a relation and not a thing (a relation where a minority monopolize the conditions of livelihood of the majority who work for them through exchange relations), the importation of capital and labour could not occur unless workers had no means by which to live in the first place and another class had a monopoly of such means. No mention of this condition is provided.

On page 256, there is reference to the fact that most women worked as domestics but, by 1900, half of the textile workers were women. There is no distinction made between the two, but domestic workers, despite being hired, worked for someone at a personal level whereas work in a capitalist factory involves working for an impersonal employer whose primary concern is obtaining as much profit as possible in the shortest period of time and at the lowest possible cost. The authors of the curriculum do not even make such a vital distinction and thereby do not enable students to gain a proper understanding of the dynamics of a capitalist system and why the present life system is the way it is. They do a disservice to students.

On page 506, which is in unit 5, there is reference to the attempt to gain equal opportunity. Such a view does not address how equality of opportunity is to be obtained in the context of the power of employers to decide, to a large extent, where, when and how much to invest and accumulate. Equality of opportunity among workers means, essentially, leveling the playing field so that they can compete against each other as far as possible on equal terms—it does not mean the elimination of competition among workers, which has been one of the aims of unions historically.

On page 528, there is a reference to the waves of immigrants and the fear that this posed among workers that they would face stiff competition from such workers on the labour market. However, there is no indication that students should explore why a labour market existed in the first place—its conditions and consequences for the kind of life Canadians and immigrants were living. It is noted that the government was unconcerned about the concerns of workers about competition from other workers, but there is little exploration of why workers would be so concerned about such competition in the first place—their economic dependence on employers for a wage for their own existence and the maintenance of a standard of living that could be undercut through such competition.

On page 540, the neo-conservative (and neoliberal) ideology of the marketplace is mentioned, and yet the implications of a market economy—that workers become commodities and have to sell their capacity to work on the market since they do not own the conditions for producing other kinds of commodities—is not mentioned at all. On page 548, there is reference to increasing unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s—but who makes the decision to increase unemployment, why they make such decisions and why they have a monopoly over such decision-making power is not explored.

On page 550, it is noted that multinational corporations have increasingly been able to influence the decisions made by governments, but students earlier had not been given the opportunity to explore how and why national corporations earlier had influenced government; students would not unlikely perceive the continuity between present conditions and past conditions.

Reference on page 550 that globalization has led to restrictions on national sovereignty also are not linked to the daily restrictions on sovereignty of workers who are under the control of unelected employers, directly through supervisors or technology or indirectly through the power to hire and fire. It is also noted on the same page that multinational corporations have more than double the wealth of all nations’ central bank monetary reserves and international monetary institutions together, and yet it is not mentioned that the combined wealth of Bill Gates ($46.5 billion) and Warren Buffet ($44 billion), in 2005, added up to 90.5 billion, not much less than the wealth of 40 percent (120 million) of the total U.S. population, or $95 billion (Chrysia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else (2012), p. 15). Nor does it mention that the Thompson family is one of the richest Canadian families (around $20 billion).

The Saskatchewan history curriculum, therefore, does not provide much of an opportunity for having students understand how and why employers and employees arose. The so-called left are oblivious to the problem. Is this not a problem?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Three: The Quebec History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts. The background to this post is provided in the first post (see  A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

When I used the search term “employ,” I did not find any relevant material in the Quebec History and Citizenship Education secondary cycle one (for grades 9 and 10) does not contain any relevant material. The same applies to the search terms “work” and “class.” Social class is mentioned in the context of industrialization on page 320, so there is some possibility for exploring the question, but there is little guidance for the teacher in how to do this. Using the search terms “capital” yields nothing of relevance.

The Quebec secondary cycle two History and Citizenship Education provides few hits concerning employers and employees. Using the search term “employ” resulted in a reference (p. 79) to employers as a group (among many others) that influences government. Other than that, there is nothing to indicate that working for an employer constitutes the daily experience of most Canadian workers; it is as if the history of how the employers and employees emerged was expunged from consideration. They may not be born one or the other, but that is their general fate—but without any historical explanation of how that occurred. Human beings are, on such a view, either employers or employees or, alternatively, the existence of people as employers or employees has little relevance for the daily experiences of working people. The silence over such an issue is evidence of a lack of critical thinking on the part of those who constructed the curriculum.

Using the search term “work” results in a few relevant hits. On page 51, there is a reference to the harsh working conditions in the second half of the 19th-century “Canada,” (not yet a nation for part of that period), especially among children. On page 52, there is the claim that, until the 1930s, Canadian workers lived in relative prosperity. Such a view probably refers to the level of income and does not take into account the economically dependent condition of employees on employers. Why and how workers increasingly have become employees is nowhere explained. The authors of the curriculum assume without inquiring why and how workers came to be employees. Having to depend on being employed by an employer, for the authors of the curriculum, has no history.

Using the search term “capital” did yield a reference to capitalism in the nineteenth century; however, reference is mainly to harsh working conditions of children at the time. Interestingly, the authors on page 51 refer to the exploitation of natural resources—while refraining from referring to the exploitation of human workers by employers. Furthermore, industrialization forms the center of research whereas capitalism forms merely one of its spokes—rather than vice versa. There is, therefore, some room for answering the question, but it is hardly a focal point. Students are unlikely to gain a clear appreciation of why most workers are now employees working for employers and why employers exist at all.

On page 47, I found a reference to the business class when using the search term “class,” but this reference is in the context of the Anglophone business class wanting to focus on canal construction in the 19th century in order to realize their own interests.

The Quebec curriculum on the history of the twentieth century yielded no relevant hits when I used the search term “employ.” When I used the search term “work,” on page 19 a brief reference to the support of trade unions and the working-class movement for socialism came up, but there is no other elaboration. The search term “capital” yielded only passing reference to the concept of capitalism. Using the search term “class,” on page 19, it is noted that the European working class in the early twentieth century was linked to socialism as opposed to liberalism and conservatism, but there is little in the way of elaboration. There is no reference to why the working class would support socialism, and how socialism would express the interests of the working class as opposed to the capitalist class; there is also no reference to why and how liberalism and conservatism would support capitalist relations of production and exchange in opposition to the interests of the working class and in favour of the interests of the capitalist class. Admittedly, there is the vague possibility that a politically astute teacher could expand on this sole reference to class, but it is highly unlikely.

The curriculum provides little real guidance in answering the question of how and why employers have come to dominate our economic lives and, in many ways, our personal lives (via control over what is produced and what is not produced). Quebec students are unlikely to understand how and why they are most likely going to work for an employer in their immediate future and what they could do to remedy this situation. Is this a coincidence?

Is the left doing anything to remedy this situation? Are teachers’ unions? Are they addressing this indoctrination of students? Are teachers? Are Canadian leftist educational journals, such as Our Schools/Our Selves, publishing any articles that critically analyze this situation? If not, why not?

 

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Two: The Ontario History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of a previous post on the Manitoba history curriculum (see   A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees). The background to the post is provided in that previous post.

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

The Ontario secondary curriculum that pertains to Canadian history consists of two documents: Canadian and World Studies, grades 9 and 10, and Canadian and World Studies, grades 11 and 12. Both include history as a separate section. No relevant hits that would answer the question came up when I used the search term “employ” for the grades 9 and 10 history curriculum. A few hits referred to employment (access of the latter for women, for example or unemployment), but nothing in the way of an exploration of the historical emergence of the employer-employees relation in Canada. The same applies when I used the search term “work.” A few topics came up (such as the impact of the decline of the manufacturing sector on workers), but no explanation of why workers need to sell their capacity to work to an employer and subordinate their will to the employer.

The grades 11 and 12 history curriculum covers more material, including Canadian, American and world history. Like other curricula, the use of the search term “employ” resulted in hits that had nothing to do with explaining why employers emerged and have the power to dictate to workers at work. Hits deal with the employment of children and women in factories, or unemployment. One reference, however, does provide some possibility for exploring the historical emergence of employers and employees. On page 399, students are asked to “analyse interrelationships between specific groups in various societies around the world during this period [1650-1789] (e.g., between slaves and masters, serfs and lords, apprentices and employers….”

Here there is real potential for students to answer the question. However, it is buried in suggestions for analysis of other class relations rather than being a focal point. To be sure, a comparative approach to class relations may help in clarifying the distinctive nature and historical conditions of the employer-employees relation, but if the study of history is to enable us to understand our current situation better, then the historical conditions for the emergence of the employer-employees relation should be the focus, and differences from other class relations could then provide a contrast to further clarify the distinctive nature of the employer-employees relation in order for students to understand how and why most workers are now employees subject to the dictatorship of employers and how this is different from other forms of class relations. The contrast could also form the point of departure for the exploration of the question of whether another form of class relation will arise if the employer-employees relation no longer exists or whether no classes will exist due to the development of substantially changed technological conditions that no longer require class relations at all.

The curriculum designers were probably quite unconscious of the implications of their inclusion of a reference to employers and to other class relations. Nonetheless, the curriculum, however slightly, does provide an opening for students to explore the issue, but that opening should be a central feature of the history curriculum since it is a central feature of modern capitalist life.

Another limitation of this reference to employers is the connection of the latter to apprentices rather than to employees. The apprenticeship system occurred in guilds at first so that subordinates were to become master artisans and not employees. As capitalist relations developed, however, apprentices saw their chances of becoming a master artisan dwindle, and they saw themselves becoming an employee (and resisted accordingly). An historical focus on the transition from apprenticeship status to the status of being an employee should have been included in order to gain a proper appreciation of the world-historical shift from apprenticeship status to the persistent subordinate status of an employee and the emergence of employers as a distinct, controlling class.

Using the search term “work,” I found little of direct relevance in answering the question although there is some indirect relevance—but insufficient to guide the teacher in developing lesson plans that would help students the modern employer-employees relation. For instance, on page 307 it is suggested to have students compare the lives of working-class children working in industrial cities to children working as slaves on a southern plantation and to compare both to the children of wealthy families. Such a comparison is certainly better than much of what is offered in other history curricula, but it remains mainly static. How and why did children become working-class children, children of slaves or children of wealthy parents? Furthermore, if, as the philosopher of education John Dewey argued, the nature of anything includes its transformation into something else, then the nature of slave society and the nature of capitalist society (which included the working class) involves a consideration of what they are changing into: “Every event as such is passing into other things, in such a way that a later occurrence is an integral part of the character or nature of present existence” (Experience and Nature, London: Allen & Unwin, 1929, p. 111). History is not just about the past but about change and the kind of change that is possible—and the kinds of possibilities that were closed as other paths were taken.

Comparative relations are also suggested on page 356 by having students compare what is called traditional, mixed, agricultural, industrialized or free-market capitalist economies. Again, such a comparative view is better than the other curricula, but what is needed is a focus on the dynamic element—from one changing into the other, and how and why that occurs. Often, the dynamic is reduced to technological change—the mass production and mass use of cars, for instance. Furthermore, as already noted, the focus is not on coming to understand the current economic relations—which is indeed what the focus should be if students are to gain an understanding of the social world around them and to gain collective control over their own lives—which forms an essential element of real education.

The implicit bias (through its lack of focus on the question posed at the beginning of this essay) becomes more explicit on page 441 when the authors write: “Why have some groups been critical of the power of unions?” It is certainly true that some groups have been critical of the power of unions—employers. Nowhere in the document can we find a reference to the following question: “Why have some groups been critical of the power of employers?”

I used the search term “capital,” but there was only the occasional reference to capitalism. On page 332 there is a reference to how capitalism was transforming early societies in the fifteenth century, so there does arise some slight possibility for exploring the question, but the nature of capitalism is left unexplored. The role of the state and violence in establishing capitalism is not mentioned, though. Vague references to capitalism, without any reference to the emergence of a class of employers and a class of workers who subordinated their will to the class of employers, leaves the teacher and students without any real guidepost to explore the reasons why and how employers emerged and why there exists a general market for workers emerged.

Using the search term “class,” I did come across the occasional reference to class differences (for example, on page 304), but the question of the modern significance of class relations and the kind of class relations is left unexplored. On page 414, there is a question concerning the significance of wage labour in China during the Ming dynasty, but the dominance of wage labour in modern capitalist relations (wage labour as the dominant mode of production and exchange implies capitalism and a class of employers), is not explored. An opening for the exploration of the existence of wage labour in Canada and throughout the world is closed by the restricted reference to China in the past.

To sum up: There is some openings for an exploration of the nature and origins of employers and employees in Canada, but in general it is unlikely that most teachers are provided sufficiently strong guidelines to make the topic an integral part of the Canadian history curriculum in Ontario.

In other words, Ontario schools provide limited scope for enlightening students on the nature and origin of employers and employees. Hence, they contribute to the indoctrination of students by largely excluding the topic from explicit consideration.

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

I submitted a longer essay to the popular Canadian educational journal Our Schools Our Selves for publication. It was never published.

The idea for the following has a personal basis: when my daughter was studying grade 11 Canadian history in Manitoba (Manitoba is one of 10 provinces in Canada, with three additional territories), I decided to look at the history curriculum in case I could provide some supports for her studies. In the process, it became evident to me that the entire curriculum left a gaping hole that failed to address my experiences in this world. Thus, I have generally worked for an employer in order to obtain money, which in turn enabled me to buy the things that I needed to live. The Manitoba Canadian history curriculum is devoid of any historical explanation of such an experience.

My experience is hardly unique. How many of those who now are reading this have worked for an employer or are now working for an employer? Is it not a little odd that a course on history fails to explain how and why employers—and their counterpart employees (employers cannot exist without economically dependent employees)–arose?

This is my research question.

Manitoba has a curriculum that does not answer the question of why employers and employees exist. Using the term “employ,” there was a reference to the super-exploitation of Chinese workers by employers. On page I-20 concerning possible inequities in employment. There is no reference to having students inquire about the possible inequity of the employer-employees relationship as such, that is to say, whether that relation necessarily involves inequities that cannot be resolved within the terms of that relation. When using the search term “work” some relevant hits for the history of the working class came up, such as the On-to-Ottawa trek (1935) or the Regina riot (1935), the trade union movement or the Workers’ Unity League, but the reason why employers and employees exist is nowhere to be found.

Using the search term “work,” I came upon a reference on pages II—28 and IV-5 to a possible exploration of the significance of the life of a worker in 1918 Winnipeg in terms of a wider concern about workers’ struggles, economic development or post Second World War events and discontents. There is a—very slight—chance that students would be able to explore the issue of why employers and employees exist, but inquiry could just as easily be carried out without determining why and how they exist.

Using the search term “class,” on page I-8 I found a reference to exclusion of citizenship was partially based on class. (On the same page, using the search term “capital,” I found the only reference to capitalism—that the Canadian economy, though a mixed economy, was mainly a capitalist economy.) On page I-9, it is argued that Canadian citizens continue to face fighting inequality based on class. Does this mean that the authors are referring to the capitalist class and the working class and are arguing that Canadian citizens are fighting to eliminate the employer-employees relation? Not at all. On page II-10, it is noted that trade unionists and socialists rejected the single narrative approach to Canadian history, but so far there is a decided singular attitude towards the employer—employees relation—it is presumed rather than being a subject of inquiry for students of Canadian history. On page II-46, there is a reference to socio-economic class, but what that means is never developed. Social democrats frequently use such a term to refer to level of income, and define the “middle class” as the socio-economic class that is above the poverty line (however defined). This way of defining class does not address the power of employees in relation to the situation of employees. Nothing else of relevance was found using this search term. The results of using the various search term show that students would not be capable of answering the question of why employers and employees exist. The document is a document in indoctrination—a document that implicitly has students accept the employer-employee as natural rather than an historical creation (and that, therefore, has an end).

According to the grade 11 Manitoba history curriculum, then, the issue of how and why employers emerged and how and why employees subordinate their will to employers is irrelevant. Is this silence an expression of social justice? On page II-31 33, there is reference to Chinese workers in 1887 and the fact that they were paid a substantially lower wage than other workers.

Again, the issue of why the wage relation exists on a large scale nowhere is to form a focus for inquiry within the curriculum. Wage work is assumed to be ahistorical through such an omission. That means, implicitly, that some people are born to be employees and some are born to be employers; it is not of course stated, but the assumption is there through the omission of any exploration of the wage relation. Or did workers freely become wage workers? Do not wage workers as a class require that another class control access to the means for them to produce their own lives? Did you freely choose to work for a wage or salary? When did you make this choice?

The reformist left share the same assumptions as the designers of this curriculum. On a listserve for the Toronto Labour Committee (to which I belonged), for example,  here in Toronto (the largest city in Canada), the regional coordinator for OPSEU (Ontario Provincial Service Employees Union) and president of GTAC (Greater Toronto Area Council), called for other workers to support striking brewery workers because, according to her, the brewery workers wanted a fair wage and decent work. I responded by agreeing that we should support them. However, when I questioned especially the idea of decent work, , a representative from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3902 eventually called me a condescending prick. A member of the Toronto Labour Committee responded that both the representative of CUPE 3902 and I were right and wrong. It is nice to be able to eat your cake and eat it too. The practical head of the Toronto Labour Committee then intervened, but the issue of decent work never got addressed.

The idea that working for an employer is somehow decent work is indoctrination–and the radical left is afraid to challenge such indoctrination.

The head of the Toronto Labour Committee stated that there should be a “discussion” about what decent work means. I doubt that there ever will be such a discussion that will emerge from the so-called radical left since the so-called radical left in Toronto (and probably elsewhere) is too afraid of upsetting its union contacts. It is too close to reformist unions to see that what is needed is a much more critical stance towards unions than what the Toronto Labour Committee displayed if the indoctrination characteristic in schools, in the economy, by unions (see an example of my critique of a management rights clause in collective agreements in   Management Rights, Part One: Private Sector Collective Agreement, British Columbia , in courts, and in social services (see my critique of the position of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty:  Basic Income: A Critique of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty’s Stance )  is to be challenged.