Occupy Toronto microcosm of a better world

On Sunday, October 23, I visited Occupy Toronto at St. James Park to see first hand what was happening there. I’ve been following the movement in Toronto and in other Canadian and American cities with great interest.
What I saw in Toronto was an engaged group (and a much larger one than I’d anticipated with about 200 tents in the park) that cares deeply about what is happening in the world.
I sat in on the large outdoor General Assembly that was underway. These are held daily. As I listened, it occurred to me that our parliament and politicians could learn a thing or two from this meeting. There was no name-calling, aggressive rhetoric or accusatory tone, but rather a respectful, inclusive exchange of ideas. Not everyone was in agreement and there was spirited questioning, but the positive exchanges were truly inspiring.
In my discussion with those involved I could see the frustration at the question that they have been asked repeatedly which is “what next?” or “what is it that they want?” If only it were that easy to say this or that will fix everything.
The message I absorbed, and one that I have felt for a long time, is that the system we have is broken and something much bigger than a few band aid solutions are needed to turn this mess around. The other message I heard loud and clear is that a better world is possible if we want it.  
As the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider, let us look around and see that what we have created is an unfair, brutal world. Of course, there is good in the world, too. In fact, I saw it in action in St. James Park.

I urge you if you have a chance to go to the park and see for yourself what is happening. Engage in conversation and ask someone for a tour. If not, at least read about the movement, research the issues that concern this engaged citizenry, and get educated before dismissing what is likely the most promising movement we can hope for. Visit www.occupyto.org for more info.
“Part of the characteristic of dissent when it’s at its best is fueled by empathy, and it’s fueled by the idea that other people matter, and that if somebody is hurt or victimized, we are all hurt or victimized. It is necessary for dissent to be expressed. It has to be expressed because to protect democracy, it’s the only hope we have.” Milton Glaser

G20 Anniversary – what’s happening one year later

Saturday, June 25th, 2011. I headed to Queen’s Park  this past weekend for the anniversary rally marking one year since the G20 protest took place, where police brutality reigned and civil rights were trampled in Toronto. One year later and where do we stand?

Despite evidence from thousands of photos, hours of video and eye witness accounts of abuse of power by government and police and the largest  mass arrest in Canadian history, not much has been done to right the wrongs. More than 1100 people were arrested at last year’s rally, and most were never charged with anything. They have never been compensated and there has not even been an admission of guilt from police or apologies. Innocent people were beaten, “kettled”, arrested and held in unbelievable conditions in a makeshift jail. I’ve written about my experience in an earlier post here if you want to scroll down to read it, but more interesting is  the coverage on the internet if you want to learn more. In fact, I think you will find this and the documentary available online called Under Occupation by Press for Truth will  show what really happened and offer information that was not available at the time of the protests in mainstream media.

I was heartened this weekend though to read that a new poll reveals a monumental shift in public opinion one year after the G20 summit of the police action. Now, more than two-thirds of Torontonians support a full public inquiry. We need to keep pressing for it despite the fact that both Harper and McGuinty have said that the investigations done thus far have been enough. While I believe the system itself is broken and a public inquiry is more than we need, it is, nonetheless, a start and police and those in charge have to be held accountable for their actions.

It was inspiring to see the people gathered this weekend at the rally.  Organizers and speakers were passionate and engaging. Their stories can be heard online by looking up G20 Redux. I was dismayed, however, to learn that there was no march planned. When I went up to ask organizers if I could have someone mention on the mic that a gathering was planned after the speeches to hold up a symbolic perimeter rope marking Queen’s Park a weapons free zone, where anyone could speak and demonstrate freely and safely, I was told, very nicely, “sorry, but this is the list of approved speakers we have” as I was shown a typed list of names, and the organizations they represented.  Apparently this was the list that had been submitted to authorities and, I gather, no one wanted to risk – what? – saying something off script? In any case, it didn’t matter because a group of young, non-violent but determined youth walked around the crowd and invited people to join in a march, and join they did! I was standing holding the perimeter rope when two police officers came and asked me what was happening when they saw people were obviously gathering. I told them people planned to march and the officers were – surprise! surprise! (but no surprise, of course) – accommodating, saying they would  help us along our route, (which, truth be told, we weren’t even sure of at the time!).  So we marched from Queen’s Park to College, over to Spadina and down to Queen, where people had been kettled one year before. We held the intersection for a while as people shared the megaphone to tell onlookers what we were doing. There was, I felt, a feeling of support there from the sidelines. Some even joined in. The march continued along Queen, east to Bay, north a block, over to Yonge and up to College where after a stop at the intersection, we walked to Police Headquarters on College. The march ended here with speeches by a number of those in the crowd.

I was reminded as my son and I walked by Fran’s Restaurant there at the corner of College and Yonge, how one year earlier following the initial peaceful march we’d attended, we’d gone to get a bite to eat at Fran’s. That was when we saw a few black bloc people smash windows while hundreds of police watched them do it and did nothing. That was the beginning for us of a day that eventually saw us trapped by police, witnessing violence by police on innocent people, altering our thinking and, sadly, substantiated some ugly truths about authority and those in positions of power.

The  spontaneous march this past Saturday, however, was energetic and positive, the chants covering a variety of messages – some more militant than others – and  with many   still clearly angry at police and the travesty that occurred a year earlier. The  police had  obviously told to keep their cool this year and they did, helping the march move along and not interfering in the process. I would truly have liked to engage in dialogue with an officer or two to know what they thought of the events that had happened a year earlier, but they were unresponsive as they walked beside  me along the route. Maybe they aren’t allowed to talk about it. Maybe it isn’t on the ‘approved’ list.

If you have a facebook account and you’d like to see a public inquiry, visit the Canadians demanding a public inquiry page or the CCLA online to support the cause.

You should (not) have stayed home

A patron at the County Public Library where I work recently dropped off a  magazine he picked up in Prince Edward Island – yes, island, not Prince Edward County  – called RED. I immediately connected with the writing having published a magazine years ago myself that, although it had a different focus, seemed to be crafted with the same spirit.

Then, in an unrelated event, something I’d seen in RED came to mind. I was watching the CBC’s Fifth Estate program on last summer’s G20 Protests in Toronto and as I listened to people’s stories unfold, a line from RED’s editorial came to mind:

“…  stories can both liberate and subjugate”

The magazine’s publisher, David Weale, was writing specifically about the stories of Prince Edward Islanders, but it underscored for me the importance of personal stories told in all places, of all experiences, by individuals. Whether it’s a fisherman in Prince Edward Island, a revolutionary in Egypt, or a G20 protestor in Toronto, it is the personal story that transcends rhetoric and propaganda. (My own experience while attending the protest is in an earlier post on this blog.)

The episode of The Fifth Estate I’m referring to is You Should Have Stayed Home, a catchy headline and, unfortunately, a sentiment expressed by more than a few who would rather rest in the comfort of apathy than be disturbed by politically engaged citizens. Despite the name, the show is a must see with unforgettable footage, captured by ordinary people. The subhead for the show is “The sights and sounds of powerful personal stories.”  And these ones liberate. I hope you see it. Here is the link.

Christine

Tadamon!

I’m no expert on foreign policy despite my long time penchant for political analysis from those who are experts and a steady diet of Chomsky, but like many people right now I’m in awe of the strength of conviction of the Egyptian people as they forge a path to change.  This video – not one of clashes in the street, but of the song of solidarity in the square – is pretty inspiring.

If you are interested in learning more about the Egyptian uprising and its implications for the Middle East, check out this interview with Noam- yeah, I like to call him Noam -  Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By the way, he’s written about 150 books. My favourites of the 10 or so I’ve read include Manufacturing Consent, which is also the name of an excellent documentary based on the book, Chomsky on Democracy and Education, and a little book called Government in the Future). Please consider checking one out at the public library sometime.

Christine

Don’t voice political views or speak to media! Bail condition for G20 protester Alex Hundert

The chilling miscarriages of justice at the Toronto G20 demonstration I attended in June are all but forgotten now as mainstream media coverage moves on. In the lives of many, however, the realities are still front page news. People like Alex Hundert.

On the day of the protest in Toronto and days following, over 1,000 people who demonstrated against the G-20 were unjustly arrested, not to mention intimidated and harassed. (You can read about my experience in an earlier post further down in this blog.)

Most have had their charges dropped, but not Hundert. He faces conspiracy charges with a number of other activists. One of the co-conspirators arrested just had his charges dropped on November 1^st and others may well follow as truths come to light   http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/884091

I do not agree with all tactics supported by Hundert or even all of his ideas, but nonetheless, my experience at the G20 and all that I have read about his case bring me to this conclusion: an indisputable threat to democracy and civil liberties is growing in Canada. If your ideas do not support the status quo, if you want to organize resistance against the present state of affairs, beware. There is a move to criminalize dissent.

Hundert was released on bail on July 16th, and re-arrested on September 17th after he participated in a panel discussion at Ryerson University.  According to the Crown Prosecutor, the activist breached his bail condition of “not organizing or attending any public demonstrations.”  Speaking as an invited person on a university panel is now considered a “public demonstration.” What next?  So Hundert is being held in prison for having simply expressed his ideas in public.

At the last bail hearing for this alleged breach, the crown tried to impose harsher conditions, including “no expressing political opinions in public, or in the media.” Hundert refused these conditions and remains in jail until he can appeal. Meanwhile, he is adamant that people need to continue organizing.

“Too much attention has been paid to a small number of cases of repression, particularly my own, when people need to be focused on and fighting back against broader patterns of oppression,“ he told a friend by phone from jail on October 11.

It is worth noting that in the official G20 Toronto Summit Declaration, the term “social justice” is not mentioned once. There is no acknowledgement or process to address the global economic inequalities at a time when the richest two per cent own more than half the world’s household wealth and when the global divide between rich and poor is wider than at any other time in our history. At this point, we might all be asking “but what can I do?”

I’m no expert, but I  suggest: Stay informed.  Don’t be afraid to use your voice against injustice. Organize on local issues for the good of your community.  Do what good you can, where and when you can.

Christine

Giving up the Globe for independents

The Globe & Mail has surely lost its appeal for me (as have most mainstream newspapers), but I admit that I did read it on occasion if only for Rick Salutin’s intelligent, well researched, and refreshing columns. The paper, unfortunately, seems to be shedding such independent, thought provoking writing like an ecdysis, as demonstrated by the firing of Salutin. He was let go just in time for the launch of the Globe’s recent re-design. Now I’m all for change, the aesthetics of print and so forth, but the revamp did not need removing Salutin.

The new look  has also resulted in shorter articles, more photos and less indepth reporting – all available on television. They fooled me a bit with the first few issues of the re-design with the Brit look; think BBC News and the Guardian. The difference is that I like the BBC and the Guardian.

Back to Salutin. Writer/activist Murray Dobbin started a campaign on his blog called “Reinstate Rick Salutin”. The full post is worth a look even if Salutin doesn’t want to be reinstated, and he won’t be.

Events and public opinion in the world are as much formed by the media as echoed by it, and since most media is now owned and controlled by a few rich and powerful players, I think it’s increasingly vital that we get varying and opposing views. Better yet, I urge people to seek out independent media (in fact, independent everything: book stores, restaurants, etc.)

My hope in this post is that I might encourage checking out sites such as rabble.ca, alternet, and the real news, and reading more widely.

I think it would be healthy to wean ourselves from the Globe. Like the feeling you get with a new haircut or a walk in the fresh autumn air, I’m finding it freeing, and the bonus is that now I’m not tempted by the ads for diamond necklaces or Cartier watches.

The online Globe is pretty much the same as the paper version, by the way. The ads, such as the one I saw there from the Canadian Association of  Petroleum Producers promoting the oil sands, just bring the point home.

Christine

G20 – Something’s happening here

Below is an essay partly composed prior to the G20 in Toronto as well as after I attended the protest. I wrote this in response to people asking, “Why do people protest these things?”

Something’s happening here

Stephen Harper and his government are on a campaign to tar anyone who has the nerve to challenge the upcoming undemocratic G20 Summit in Toronto as a troublemaker. How dare anyone question the government’s spending of more than a billion of our tax dollars, including a 1.9 million dollar media centre complete with a $57,000 indoor fake lake? The government is calling the lake “a water feature”, but that does not change the fact that it is, like the G20 meetings, a constructed reality that is both perversely expensive and deceptive. The fake is steps away from the real lake at the foot of the city, adding to the absurdity. Part of that nearly 2 million dollars will also go toward a giant television screen that will allow visiting journalists to watch World Cup soccer matches while they sip free beer and wine. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has stated publicly that the government feels “this is money well spent”.

The amount, by the way, is a fraction of what the entire G8/G20 deal will cost us, currently estimated at over 1.5 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, the government stance on the upcoming G8 and G20 Summits is clearly that we should not question, much less protest what the world leaders discuss and decide hand-in-hand with the banking elite behind closed doors from June 25 to the 27. Outside, the important question remains whether the group is even a legitimate one to create the economic plan for the people of the world. The belief of many is that it is not.

The private, invitation-only group making world altering decisions was assembled, as revealed in a recent article in the Globe and Mail entitled “How Canada made the G20 happen” by John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, literally by finance ministers writing the names of the countries they would like to invite to the club on the back of an envelope. Objections to the existence of the G20 have been clearly stated by various citizen groups who feel that the summits should be scrapped. Decisions that impact the world should not be made by small, self-selected groups, they contend, and issues of economic trade, justice and the environment affecting the world should be instead addressed by the United Nations, or what is becoming known as the G192.

A look at the Harper government’s G20 website easily shows that the public is being kept out of the loop with regards to these important matters.

One thing we do know from what has been revealed thus far is that the meetings promise to deliver little if nothing on climate change, one of the most pressing concerns on the planet. Scientists and recognized experts around the world have made it clear that economic recovery can only be effectively addressed by focusing on growth that moves everyone away from fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline and the disastrous effects of their continued use. This point, however, as well as human rights, jobs for the masses and alternatives to the current economic paradigm are secondary to corporate profits under the banner of “getting the economy back on track”.

This, at a time when the economic track record of world governments is abysmal, providing nothing but corporate bailouts and millions in bonuses for the already rich bankers while instilling widespread doubt and worry for the rest of the population. We have seen catastrophic failures of economies throughout the world. The Harper government, meanwhile, considers issues of climate change and such as “externalities” that do not warrant significant consideration at the G20 table lest they muddy the waters (though oiling the waters may be the more correct metaphor for the day).

Environmental damage, social costs of unemployment, poverty, exploitation of workers and long-term sustainability have little place at this Summit. Unfettered free-markets – largely responsible for how we got to where sit today – continue to serve the unending belief that more of the same greed-based capitalism will save us and prevail as the plan for our future. Noam Chomsky makes the point when he states, “Workers and their families may starve to death in the New World Order of economic rationality, but diamond necklaces are cheaper in elegant New York shops, thanks to the miracle of the market.”

In this New World Order the voice of the people is being, if not silenced, controlled in cordoned off areas, fed by video to the G20 members who can choose to listen or turn away in the safe distance of their hotel many kilometers away from those “disruptive protesters”. This is how people are being “allowed” to show their displeasure.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews confirmed that Ottawa is budgeting at least $933 million for security at the G20, and they could ask Parliament for more if security costs end up higher than first thought. The concrete and wire fence alone is worth 5.5 million of our tax dollars. My question is, Could we not use this money for more pressing matters? Perhaps to build affordable housing or feed children in need? Education and health care come to mind as well.  Surely some green start up money for small business could be carved out of that $933 million.

Though I do not believe there is a necessity to hold G20 meetings, and I advocate scrapping them in accordance with suggestion from the Council of Canadians (founded by a handful of citizens including Maude Barlow, Farley Mowat and Margaret Atwood, the Council of Canadians is our country’s largest citizens’ group acting for social, economic and environmental justice here in Canada and around the world.), I concede that the event will unfold and that some security measures may now be necessary. What is planned, however, is a show of unprecedented police presence, complete with riot gear and sound cannons meant to scare away as much of the population as possible. The irony is that this type of presence, which is being touted as a protection for citizens, will only discourage average discontented citizens who might want to protest, while it baits and encourages those too angry to contain their violent actions. The fact is that spending over a billion and a half dollars so that politicians and bankers can meet behind fences and barricades far from any dissention is not only unacceptable, but also undemocratic.

In the House of Commons recently, Harper replied to questions about costs that “security demands nowadays make summits expensive”. Does that not beg the question then that if so many people oppose the G20 that security costs escalate every time these meetings are held anywhere in the world, Why do we continue to hold them? Should we not examine their legitimacy? The people are speaking! What alternatives might be considered?

I contend that security the way the current government wants it, that is to contain, control and shut down the entire core of a city is expensive, but it need not be. There are alternatives to the meetings themselves, and to how they are being handled.

One of my greatest immediate concerns is that the security issue at the upcoming G20 has morphed into a campaign to instill fear into the populace so that many otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people are thinking that we should be afraid of demonstrations and protesters. This fear is making them abandon their rights and reject the rights of others.

The vast majority of protesters are, and can be, people like you and me. While millions of Canadians will read about the G20 and tragically shrug off crucial issues of our times, ones that will affect our children and children’s children, and choose instead to flee their city, perhaps go shopping, watch television or generally slide into apathy, there are others who care with a passion that leaves them compelled to do more. They will take to the streets and exercise their right to say that what is being done is not acceptable. Do not discount all of these people as radicals or crazy. Let’s not play into the hands of government as it effectively manipulates public opinion with a smear campaign to have us believe that anyone who chooses to challenge or question their actions are the bad guys. This is an extremely dangerous and unfounded presumption.

Consider for example the ramifications of this type of crusade with regards to the closure of the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. In line with the state-of-security mentality, the school will be locked down, students in residence moved and all activities cancelled for three days while the G20 takes place. One of the events, The People’s Summit featuring Maude Barlow, Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein, that was scheduled to take place at the university had to be moved at the last minute to Massey Hall.

It is more than sad to think that a post secondary institution of learning, a place that should be a bastion of critical thought and discussion, can be silenced so swiftly with no input from the faculty or student body. This type of action, bolstered by extreme measures of police presence, intimidates and invites suspicion and anger. I do not believe in violence, not only on principle but because the protest movement is not served by images of destruction. In fact, I believe that some of those in power would like to see violence erupt because it feeds the media and it diverts attention from the critical matters at hand. If this sounds like conspiracy theory, key in “agents provocateurs at Montebello” on the Internet to learn how the Quebec police were forced to admit that they had disguised three of their own officers as rock-wielding troublemakers in an attempt to provoke violence at a peaceful protest.

Violence will not advance civil society. What the movement to a better world needs is numbers. We need as many good, decent, courageous people protesting, exercising their right to civil disobedience in non-violent forms and, yes, non-violent disruption of society, if that’s what it takes to bring about much needed change.

The rights we enjoy, the advancements we have made were hard won. Let’s not give them up through apathy. The protection of the environment, equal rights, abolition of slavery, changes to labour laws – all of these things that have made the world a better place – did not happen because a handful of politicians and bankers walked in and said, “Let’s do this because it is the right thing to do”. The masses, people like you and me, in defiance of rules that are unjust, questioning and rejecting the status quo, have been and will continue to be the force of positive economic, social and political change. Strikes, boycotts, marches, writing to the press on issues, constant vigilance, educating ourselves and others and inspiring them to care, these are the things that can force those in power to respond and accept the will of the people for a better world.

After I returned from the G20 I can hardly believe what happened and what I witnessed when I attended G20 events in Toronto.  On Friday evening, June 25th, I attended a G20 forum presented by Maude Barlow, Naomi Klein, Dr. Vandana Shiva, Amy Goodman, and other activists. Over 3000 people packed Massey Hall and the evening culminated with a protest march led by Naomi Klein. All was peaceful, so coverage of this important forum has not appeared in the media.

The next day, I joined what is now being estimated as 25,000 (up from the 10,000 originally thought) peaceful protestors in a march to Queen’s Park. Again, hardly a mention in the news though the heavy police presence was newsworthy. Following this, while eating at Fran’s at College and Yonge, my son and I heard shattering glass and shouting out on the street. Outside, we saw about twenty black clad vandals smashing windows and perhaps fifty others with them. These so called Black Bloc members were not with any group of protestors and there were not many other people on the street.

Battle lines being drawn

Everybody look what's goin' down

There were, however, many police officers in full riot gear on the same street. They were standing a bit back on the stairs of a building, but they could clearly see what was happening. Amazingly, they did not descend on these vandals, but hung back and let the destruction continue. When my son and I got to Bay Street, a police line was formed (which did not, by the way, impede the progress of those breaking windows) and they would not allow us to cross, but instead made us go into a building with a few others where we were trapped until we learned there was a back exit.  At no time while I remained at the protest, until I left after 7 p.m., did I see  police attempt to halt the destruction at any time. Instead, when we made our way back to the “designated protest zone”, police surrounded those of us who were peacefully gathered there. Donning full riot gear, banging their shields, with some officers on horseback, they systematically pushed the crowd back attempting to drive us out of the park. Never once  did they try to communicate with the crowd using megaphones or speaking in any way to explain their actions. Violence was used on non-violent protesters exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. The experience was chilling. I felt far more afraid of the police than those who had been destroying property.

Since then, thousands of photos and videos of what really transpired from Saturday the 26th of June to Sunday the 27th have come to light. The information and images are truly shocking. Hundreds of illegal arrests, aggressive police actions and gross violations of Charter Rights have been documented. Lies are rising to the surface like dead fish.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has now admitted that there never was a five-metre rule permitting police to stop and search individuals who came too close to the G20 security perimeter. He explained that he mislead the public because he, “was trying to keep the criminals out.” When displaying a collection of weapons confiscated from the protest, mostly bats, bricks and such, he included a crossbow and a chainsaw. These last two items, Blair admitted when questioned, were actually seized in a case unrelated to the G20. According to news channel CP24, chainmail displayed  had been taken from someone heading to a medieval faire. The real weapons of the G20 were exclusion, violation of civil rights, violence, and lies.

In the end, the meetings of the privileged leaders, in their protected fortress away from the unwanted and ignored dissent of the people, amounted to nothing but government communiqués with commitments as shallow as the fake lake that was quickly forgotten, and with language vague enough to adjust to political rhetoric devout of any substance. And while the leaders lunched and laughed, black clad frustrated vandals were left to create chaos that could have been prevented, violations of our rights by a militarized police force reigned and people were arrested, silenced, and left disillusioned and demoralized.

None of the crucial issues of the G20 were or will be represented in any meaningful way. Nothing discussed by the leaders for our almost 2 billion dollars will make one bit of positive change in our lives. Tomorrow, different news, sports scores and Lady Gaga’s record-breaking facebook friends number will be front-page news. The entire G8/G20 Summit was a travesty.

Someone recently told me that they do not get involved in politics. While this is an intelligent person who understands issues of sustainability, peak oil and climate change, and is working in the community to build a resilient lifestyle, they told me that they do not care about “power” and “politics”. This is a worry.

When water becomes a commodity that only the rich can afford, the planet is trashed, social programs that make ours a humane and livable place vanish, when you are jailed for voicing your opinion or objecting to injustices perpetrated by governments, even the most self-sufficient will be affected. Change can and will come only from a combined approach, that of the conscious individual life and the nurturing of a positive collective life. Most urgent, however, will be  the ability to accept that change is possible if enough people give a damn.

Related Links: Visit these or search online under G20 protests and issues

Paikin on police attacks

Council of Canadians

Final G20 Summit Communique text

Ideas that step out of the mainstream

Why Home Education?
Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.
Noam Chomsky

The public education system, as it stands, is flawed. Aside from budget cuts, political interference and teachers who face incredible workloads, there is something fundamentally broken within the system and many children are paying the price.

I have met  parents who are  dissatisfied with the education their children are receiving and who feel powerless to make change. For this reason, many accept the status quo. That need not be the case. One alternative I propose from first hand experience, and which I believe is well worth exploring, is home education. Despite some opinions that it is “too out there” or might be too difficult, homeschooling remains a viable, effective option that is not nearly as daunting as many would like the public to believe.

Home education can be a very successful and rewarding experience for all involved. I have seen this with my own children and I have met and spoken with hundreds of home educating children and their families over the years. It can be a unifying family experience that provides a meaningful education and, more importantly, encourages a lifelong love of learning.

There are many reasons why families might choose home education or as it is more commonly called, homeschooling.  Some parents simply have different ideas about what type of education they want for their children. Some may want their children growing up in a different social structure and environment, or may have different goals than those offered by the public school system. Each family is different and our experience varied with our three children.

Our oldest son was not homeschooled, but attended a publicly funded “gifted” program many years ago in Toronto that served him well. It should have been called “alternative” rather than “gifted” because I feel that most children would benefit from such a program. It wasn’t perfect – nothing is – but there was sharing of power in the classroom and the students had a great deal of say in what happened to them each day. The work was challenging and interesting and teachers had the freedom to think outside the box. Unfortunately, the road to innovation in schools since those days seems to be closed. Nothing short of a revolution in education is going to make needed change and I see no revolutionaries waiting in the wings.

What seems to be of great concern today is how everyone is doing in comparison to everyone else, be it one child compared to another in a classroom, one school board compared to another, or one country compared to another. Test scores reign. A love of learning is not important on this agenda. There is no time. There is curriculum to cover. There is no time for meaningful conversation and discussion. There are strands to work through, tests and a lot of material to touch on. Some students get it, some don’t. Move along. Never mind if it is not connecting to the student. Study, test, pass or fail, and let’s move to the next item.

Generally, what most parents and educators worry about is, How can I get this child through the system, preferably with good grades? How will students ever get by if they don’t do well in school? What will this child end up doing for a living? And students worry about this, too.  Many want to be successful and rich. In today’s consumer society, that is a dominant goal. I would suggest that instead, at the top of the list of questions, we should perhaps be asking, Who will this child become? What kind of person? How can we provide what is needed to cultivate well adjusted, kind individuals with strong enough character to make a difference in the world?

When our middle son started school in 1994, he was an enthusiastic, joyful learner. He was always asking questions. I saw that enthusiasm wane and that joy disappear, however, after only a couple of years in the public system. We took him out of school, but not before we saw him learn that he was powerless to make change when he felt things were unjust in school, that he must learn what others decided should be important for him to learn, that authority was not to be questioned, and that rewards in the form of grades, ribbons, awards and special favours were doled out by those in charge to those they deemed worthy. Academically, he was a good student so that wasn’t what concerned us. He just didn’t think learning was much fun anymore. And this was in a school that, I believe, was a very good one within the system with caring, competent teachers and an excellent principal. The problem is not the people (though it can be), but the system itself.

My point is, what if one does not want the current educational model that exists for their children? We know we can’t dismantle the institutional model of education. There is far too much at stake. Let’s face it; education is a business. The top down, labeling, grading, testing, authoritarian education model is here to stay.
But what about parents who ask “Is this what we want and need for our children and for future generations? Is this what I want for my child? Is the environment of this system one that will produce great independent thinkers, compassionate human beings who are prepared to meet the challenges of the future? And most of us know that we have some incredible challenges ahead given the state of the planet.

It is understandably difficult to question what is familiar and comfortable. For some, it is impossible. For many, especially so for those who did well in school, school and childhood are inextricably linked. Their entire social lives are woven into the fabric of school. How can public education even be questioned? How? Well, let us consider that questioning is the essence of learning.

Consider also that when children don’t do well within our system, we say the children are failing. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, How are we failing the children? What methods are not working? Einstein is credited with his definition that we might well remember about insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Some say that if there were not thirty students in a class they could learn more easily, but the truth is that regardless of the numbers the children receive the failing marks, not the teachers nor the system. Some people think “new curriculum” will help, while others think it is to blame. Does raising the bar make sense if we are just setting more and more children up to fail? What are we teaching them with this strategy? Do all Grade 3 children really need to know about pioneers and do all Grade 4 students need to understand medieval history? What should an educated person know today anyway? “Information,” Einstein is quoted as saying, “is not knowledge.”
In addition to knowing how to read, how about cultivating a love of reading? Does forcing children to read before they are ready, asking them to read things they have no interest in, and then grading their efforts perhaps kill that potential love affair with the written word?

Children need to feel cared for and secure in all environments in order to truly learn. They need to feel good about themselves and that is not what many can receive within the existing system. I have a particular interest in how very young children learn, and there is a great deal of research that proves that much of what is required of children in elementary schools today is developmentally inappropriate. But what do we do?

I realize there are no easy answers.  I know that many great people are teachers who are doing all they can in a system that does not work well. They face long days of endless coercion trying to make children interested in topics in which they are not interested. It is an endless carrot and stick endeavour. Students who do what they are told without question are rewarded, as are teachers who buy in and don’t make waves. Many teachers acknowledge the inadequacies of the system, but march on and do the best they can.  Some are indoctrinated so deeply in the system, however, that they cannot question or accept any other way. There are also a few teachers who are not doing a good job, but children are still in their classes. Some may argue that there are parents who are not doing a great job of parenting but this is not the issue at hand. This is an entirely different issue, but I think it is safe to say that parents who need support and help in parenting are receiving neither in the school system, though judgment, from my experience, is readily available.

Our youngest became interested in attending school midway through 6th grade as her brother had entered highschool by then. (Our children were homeschooled  but were free to attend school if they so chose). She began attending a portion of the day. She attended full time in Grade 7 and again in Grade 8, though she opted to homeschool again in the latter part of grade 8.  She possesses exceptional artistic ability, but is the first to admit that organizational skills are not her strong suit. Her interest in science and chemical compounds is limited. Like hundreds if not thousands of students, her interest in algebraic functions, linear, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, polynomial, and rational functions, is also limited. That is not to say that these are not important to students who intend to pursue professions that would require this knowledge, but just serves to point out that many hours of students’ energies will be spent on, not to mention stress created by, these matters that have no relevance to their lives. Can we honestly say that all the hours we spent in school were meaningful? Or were we memorizing information for tests, then promptly forgetting what we’d  learned? Were we jumping through the hoops necessary in order to receive a diploma that said we had done the work?

My aim is not to offend in presenting these ideas but to present an opportunity for truthful analysis and  questioning our assumptions. Again, I mention that I know many dedicated and caring educators who are making a difference daily in classrooms and  questioning the system does not ignore this fact. My children have had the pleasure of knowing some of these teachers. I only offer another perspective and present the dilemma some parents face and why some families may choose to home educate.

There is not only one way to be an educated person. Parents should not feel powerless. Home education is a legal option in Ontario. Visit the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents to learn more at http://www.ontariohomeschool.org/ and information from the Ontario Ministry of Education on homeschooling can be found at: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/131.
There are hundreds of books on home education and alternative education as well. Books by John Holt and John Taylor Gatto are worthwhile and enlightening reading. Taylor Gatto, who was voted New York Teacher of the Year, has a new book called  Weapons of mass instructions.  Some of these authors’ works can be found on the Internet as well. Other titles I’d highly recommend include Homeschooling for Excellence by David and Micki Colfax, Creating Learning Communities – Models, Resources, and News Ways of Thinking About Teaching and Learning edited by Ron Miller, and Why Homeschooling Makes Sense by David Guterson. For those interested in deeper analysis, I highly recommend Chomsky on Miseducation and also Krishnamurti’s Education and the Significance of Life.