Critical Crossfield outcome 4 (cont.)

Quick update on the scenario featuring An Education Department, An Educator that seems to have lost her marbles or never had them in the first place, Parents of A Learner who pointed out the lack of marbles, Other Learners who don't know the difference between marbles and unmarbles.

Next Act:

The previous act has not concluded satisfactorily, and the conclusion will set the scene. The Department wants to hush the matter up. Like the parents thought they would. The parents are saying there are principles involved that affect education at its very core. The Department doesn't seem to be able to deal with such concepts, and would dearly love to "contain" the matter as a disagreement between individual parents and the poor misrepresented educator.

What will the next act bring? Will the parents and the learner who blew the whistle on the absence of marbles receive the apology demanded as minimum recompense to settle the matter? Probably not...so then what? Should the matter be exposed to a greater public for discussion? Should the Educator be sanctioned and how? Should the matter of the educator's past demonstration of lack of professional marbles be exposed, so dragging in previous schools who would probably love just to be let alone after the damage she caused there?

THIS SITUATION IS PIVOTAL TO THE QUALITY AND PRACTICES OF MAJOR PLAYERS IN SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION.  We would really like to concentrate on more constructive and entertaining issues but will have to see this one through!

Critical Crossfield Outcomes 4(b)

THE NEXT ACT

The scene: The Principal's Office
The department roars onto the scene, Deus ex machina style, apparently surprises the principal, and comes to investigate the matter in the form of a well-spoken and dignified female who appears to be recently married from her style of headdress.
The educator is interviewed. Other stakeholders are not to know what transpired in the interview, but the educator puts its best foot forward by praising the brilliance of the learner in question and most probably comes across as being confused and hurt by having her good intentions questioned. Always works, that one, and even the most seasoned employers fall for it.
The parents of the learner are asked to come and be present while the learner is interviewed. At the end of a lengthy discussion, the department's representative is cracking her knuckles with anxiety to conclude and contain the matter. As mentioned in setting the scene, the department does NOT need a scandal. Neither does the principal, or the school, as reputations will forever be tarnished. Pity they didn't think about that when the appointed the educator without checking references!

The department is overtly unwilling to discuss or investigate the Facebook element. It is "after hours". Whether it destroys the thinking ability of students in this case, or contains demonstrable instances of libel, threats and instigation of those, is of no interest to the department.

The department has to obtain the permission of parents in order to interview other learners involved. It doesn't want to interview them, as the investigation then becomes bigger and the threat of it becoming public grows exponentially. It babbles things like "protecting the child", keeping people in schools etc in order to try and calm the parents down. It doesn't take the victimisation seriously, as the child was not present when it happened and can only take it into account if other children are interviewed.

Hm. What are the parents to do? Be content with a slap on the wrist of the educator when SHE is the one who took the matter to a greater audience? And now the PARENTS are held responsible if it becomes public? Is this how the department thinks?

The parents decide on letting go in the interest of certain learners, and possible old acquaintances that they do not wish to embarrass. They demand a public apology to their daughter as the humiliation and victimisation were public and continue to be so through harassment on Facebook. The apology doesn't seem to be forthcoming, so watch out for the third Act!

Critical Crossfield Outcomes 4; Communicating Values 2

This post, and the following ones with the same heading, combine some of the things touched upon in previous ones, by painting a very real scenario and asking how CCFO 4: COLLECT, ANALYSE, ORGANISE AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE INFORMATION is served, or not, by this scenario.

Knowing the difference between right and wrong, between solid, useful and relevant information and what is conveniently known as crap, is a fundamental skill.

THE SCENARIO

Main character: An educator that has been expelled, in the natural if not legal sense of the word, from two previous workplaces for unprofessional misconduct towards learners. Instigating mistrust towards authorities and the system in both places, casting aspersions on the intentions and actions of those above her and posing as the only saviour of the poor, poor learners who are being exploited and limited by others seems to be, from information gathered so far, a favourite MO.

Other important characters:
1. The learner (now hounded by other learners, with veiled and illegal threats made against her in the school corridors)who first sounds the alarm to
2. Her mother, who happens to be more familiar with the education system, the Public Service Code of Conduct, and the dire need of the education department in question not to have more scandals thrown at them than most parents
3. The principal, let's call him Mr Expedience, very chuffed with himself for having received awards from the department in question and having hobnobbed with names that he drops like a man with no arms
4. The education department in question, that first acts in alarm and pleads for the issue not to be made public, but then seems to be dragging its heels on the level where its workload and the perceptions of the principal intersect.

In the wings, but not at all unimportant:
1. Several educators and stakeholders in the school who strongly, but out of necessity anonymously (you don't want to piss the department off, because you have a job and have to feed your children and elderly parents), urge the mother on to take the case to the highest levels of the department, as they have very grave concerns about the ability or intention of the principal to run the school along the lines of what they perceive to be "right and wrong". These have been in education for very long and include parents of top past learners
2. Gum-chewing governing body members who until recently thought all coloured learners were Muslims
3. Facebook
4. Previous employers, who may still be battling after-shocks
5. Dominees. The misguided ones with personal issues.
6. The courts, who may or may not be approached for interdicts to force the principal to run his school on professional lines, with the interests of learners, and not educators, protected
7. The majority of parents, who leave education to the school and don't want to be bothered if they think their children may be victimised (as is demonstrably happening now), or if they are not directly involved

THE BATTLEFIELD
The minds of hundreds of learners who will, or will not, at the end of the play know what is professional behaviour expected (and legally enforceable) from public service educators. Who will, or will not, understand that they have been the victims of emotional brainwashing, and will or will not be able to discern between propaganda and facts.

THE QUESTION (or the one asked by THIS post):
Should churning out symbols to impress your superiors be a stronger motivation for a principal than producing emotionally intelligent, informed learners who can make choices and not act like lemmings? That question does not only apply to this scenario.

Watch this space for CCFO's 4(b)!