The Autonomous Education Federation (FAE) continues its indefinite general strike. On December 8, if nothing has changed at the negotiating table, the Common Front will join it for seven days of strike. The Interprofessional Health Federation of Quebec (FIQ) would join them as of December 11.
In a beautiful text, my colleague Nathalie Plaat recently recounted in these pages how the mother she is approached the delicate question of the teachers’ strike with her daughter.
How can you talk to students about it in class if you are a teacher? Philosophy has things to say about this that I think are valuable.
Private, public, civic spaces
A parent talks to his child about the strike: no one will blame him for giving his point of view and even only giving this one. We are here in private space.
We will not say the same thing if it concerns the media, an important component of the public space: here, we should aim for objectivity and ask that we reflect the diversity of points of view as best as possible. Ideally, we will therefore give the floor to representatives of all these points of view.
Let’s come to school, to the classroom. Here we are in another space: civic space. The game has just changed in a big way.
Teaching without indoctrinating
When tackling a controversial, polemical, debated subject – gender and sex, nationalism, the free market, religious beliefs, and many others, without forgetting a strike – the teacher must first distinguish between this what is firmly established (e.g. by science) and what is open to debate. It must also take into account what is prescribed by law and required by public policies. All this requires knowledge.
But once all that is considered, here is a topic that he can, even should, address in class, typically because the curriculum or current events demand it.
Here again, he needs knowledge. The teacher must be able to explain what a strike is, who is doing it, and against whom. And why we do it…
Unlike speakers in the private or public sphere, the teacher must know the different points of view on the issue addressed. This, again, requires knowledge.
Knowledge, but also tact and a sense of what he accomplishes and for what audience: these are children or young people who are required by law to be in front of him. It must therefore take into account their age, what they know, because the curriculum taught has taught them this, but also what they do not yet know, without forgetting what they are able to understand. This again requires knowledge.
We can hope that, faced with this delicate but necessary task, the teacher also has in mind an important thing learned in his philosophy of education course. There she is.
He can, and in many cases even must, address controversial subjects in class, subjects on which disagreements exist in society, doctrines as they say to distinguish them from knowledge, but he must do so while ensuring that he does not indoctrinate the people he addresses.
Indoctrinate? It is the opposite of teaching, through which we train, by transmitting knowledge, a free, open, autonomous mind, capable of making choices. To indoctrinate, on the contrary, is to close the mind on a doctrine, and this is done by using all kinds of means (obscuring points of view, playing on emotions, misrepresenting certain ideas and many others) to achieve.
Imagine, taking into account all of the above, that you have to speak about a controversial subject to a third-year secondary school class.
You will do research on the subject. You will find out about the curriculum taught in the years preceding your intervention and that of the course in which you are participating. You will take into account the age of the students. You will be careful and keep in mind this crucial requirement not to indoctrinate and all that it implies.
By doing so, you will understand a little better why this profession is demanding and why the training given to people who practice it should be very demanding.
I’m thinking about it. By doing so, you will understand a little better what is at stake in this strike.
A lecture
The National Institute of Public Health of Quebec has just published an analysis of recommendations for reducing health risks associated with the use of screens in a school context. It’s worth reading.
Among other things: “It is generally recommended to limit screen time in class and in services offered before or after school, to take frequent breaks when using them and to incorporate movement during breaks in order to limit sedentary behavior at school. »
Doctor of philosophy, doctor of education and columnist, Normand Baillargeon has written, directed or translated and edited more than seventy works.