19 g 7年1 0月1
S峰Rl^*
m,-"ir嘗,,■ ■—層,l', iWi,J rrn'■, o fymB^w^
COMMENTS ON; THE REPORT ON MULTICULTURA'LISM
RACE RELATIONS. ETHNIC RELATIONS AND
by Scarborough Multicultural and Race Relations Committee
議程併列9很明齄的此擧有利於反 對/si裔語言計劃-而在同日會議中 -項反對祖裔語言計劃的意見
士加穩 w三)合:a
||^於十刀十口3日(》,.
上-通過接納、^據稀族 !係及多元夂化政,i ^政策草
":^內容不^ Ifl,,:趣:
原夂1^英文"尜遍囊諫::
'^■^j\m if
以^報化與 發表聲明。
\
or
多元文化及嵇族闘係委員會d
此機會向政策顧問委員會(POL^ ICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
"特別是爲政策草案付出過精祌和 時間的工作人員致意。雖然這不算
是個十全十莠的草案》但我們覺得 已向正確的方向邁進~步9而且遍
足反映此一多元文化社會的重要課
、:
另一方面*委員會對敎育委員 育滅人'員處^政策草:案的態度感-/到不滿。敎育局委員會所通過接納 的報垂書"內容曾遭删削。變成爲 橱窗裝飾$而且其通過及公佈的程 序亦引起不同種族圑體的憒怒。我 約僅就此提出數點:
6有甚多圑體s i包括我I門在內r 都極力強調要將這個政策草案視爲 一個整體》因爲當中的每一個小節 都是構成政策完整的要素*我們反 對當局挺之"肢.觯"-
©當局將祖裔,言計劃視爲整個 草案唯一要點? &把'它突出&對其 他的有p內容.則只略略帶過。
©雖然已有足夠時間來檢討這個 政策草案及接受意ia »當局然將^ 討論延遲至今夏之後?無疑,部份 敎f?委員是想得到更多的時間來組 繳反對祖胬^言計劃的行動。相反―
viP ,對政府委員會政策草案影饗重
大的官方報告却在當局考慮僅一天.
後便可公佈s 明當局沒有誠意對 待公衆的反應^
@)當局花了數元刊登廣吿〃激 求各方而對祖裔語言計劃的意見5. 但未有花過任何金錢在其他富爭論 性的問題上。難道"英語爲第二語 言"課fS和根據兒童的熊力和智力 來,班等計剷毫不重'要?抑或宫方 恐怕若在廣吿上提出"你認爲士嘉、
M敎育局應否爲1新的加拿^:靑年人 提供更多的英^爲第二 15言課程?
"rfu得各種不间的反應° @祖裔語言計劃廣告誤導公衆ff
它對週末課程建議隻字不提°更甚 、的是亦無提及有關黑人祖裔語文的 '計劃。令黑人社區感到混齓和受侮
辱°
㊅委員會及其委員組織曾,集了 大槪一千二百封支持祖裔語言計劃 的信件^部份甚當局在一九八七年
二月間徵求外界對政滚草案意見時 寄出-另一部份是在一九八七年六
月徵求意見的廣审出現後畲出。但
在九月十七日敎育局會議中却未與
却—由局方職員用打字機打在議程上
a難道這是公平的處理鹧?
這#1有,種族關係與多元文化的 ih式報吿其實已背叛了一'個多元文 化社^ 。也浪费了各工作人g在政 策草案上所花的時間精祌③
例如草案中所提及的"平等就業 97字眼在官方報告中也被剔除。究 竞敎育局贊成還是反對?公衆對此
o
,一無所血
另一方面,委員會獲得保証,在 官方報吿中會列出"英語作爲第二 語言課程"的詳細內容。但事實上 。螫倔報告却沒有提及任何現行課 程及敎職員的資料@
除此,政策草案曾就少數族裔靑 年就、讀職業學:铰、問題^提出十項建 議,但宫方報告"—建議、'委另―二 委員會"硏究"此一問題/可見整 個政策草案的所有重點被完全忽視 "官方報吿所.加上的新勤議谁只是 —些毫不重要的枝節s當島的種挨
JS:係和多元文化新政策^募寶只晕 "新瓶舊酒/如果所有的竣育委員^ 爲已將問題解決,或是fi爲多,文 :化竪立了另一個里程碑,仏這寿 可悲的錯誤。 A
The Multicultural and - Race Relations Committee , would like to commend the Policy Advisory Committee, particylariy Board staff members : who contributed their energy and expertise in preparing 3 very comprehensive and sensitive draft policy paper. Th<=i draft policy was not perfect, as we indicated m our response last spring (see Appendix 3). Neverthe-lessv we felt it was a step in the right direction and reflected most of the issues and concerns of the multicultural community.
On the other hand, the Committee cannot condemn too strongly the manner in which the PoA.C. draft policy has been treated by trustees and board officials. In terms of content, the P.A.C. report has been emasculated: the officials' report adopted at Educatiow Committee is largely window" dressing, In terms of process, the many cultural and community groups involved fee! emasculated: the ^ procedure whereby the officials' report was released and approved is profoundly resented. Our specific comments ape as follows:
1. It was emphasized by many community groups, including ours, that the draft policy should have been reviewed as a package because each item was an integral part of the policy. We reject the piece-meal approach of the Board*
2。 By treating Heritage Language Programs as a separate issue, the Board made it appear as the only issue. Other serious concerns have been given short shrift.
3, Having more) than enough time £o review and respond to the draft policy which was released in January 1987, the Board decided to further delay the discussion until after the sum men The stated intention of some trustees was to allow for more time for opponents of Heritage Languages Programs ,m
become organized. - By contrast, ihe officials' report which gutted key sections of the P.A.C. draft policy was released one working day prior to consideration by the Boan3。 So much for the Board's sincerity in wanting public input!
4. Whereas the board spent thousands of tax dollars on advertisement^ seeking input on the Heritage Languages issue, not ^ cent was spent towards seeking input on critical issues contained in the officials' report. What about E。S。L.9 streaming, etc.? Are these issues not as important to the Board? Or is the Board afraid of the answer it might get if the. ads had posed the question: "Do you think the Scarborough Board of Education should do more to teach. English As A Second Language to new Canadian youngsters?"
5. The Heritage Languages advertisements were misleading. No mention was made of the weekend program proposed in the feasibility report. Consequently, many of the submissions to the Board seemed to: be addressing Bill 80"a different kettle of fish entirely. Moreover,, no mention was made of the Black Cultural Heritage Pnpgram which left the Black community confused and insulted.
6. The Committee and its member org—53;—s collected approximateiy
3 200: Ziet ieis in:;support - of -〜tha_. Heritage Languages Program。 Some were sent to the Board after the : request for written r responses to the P.A.C. draft policy in February 1987; some, were sent after
the ad requesting submissions in 、June 1987. None of these letters》 were attached to the Board agenda or referred to by the trustees on September 丑7tfi。 What does it ― take to get on the agenda?: Apparently it helps if you're opposed to Heritage Languages Programs. A petition opposed to Heritage Languages Programs was officially re'ceived by the Board at the September 17th meeting。 Oppone— who called the Board offices could even expect their comments to be typed by Board staff and added to the agenda! So much for fair treatment by the Boards David Owen indicated that except in the case of a referendum, volume of support did not mean anything。 Yet he" publicized the 23 phone calls in support of the Board's decision。 It seems that some trustees have selective hearing.
In short, a significant segment of Scarborough's population feels it has been given shabby, insensitive treatment by their elected representatives on the Board. The trust with which Frank Plue and others have worked so hard to build bridges has been shattered by the manipulative tactics of some trust-
The Officials' Report on Race Relations", Ethnic Relations and Multiculturalism represents a betrayal of the mukiculturaS community.* The thousands of person-hours spent on , the P.A*C。 draft policy havB largely been wasted.
1. 丁he section of the draft policy dealing with Employment Equity has been eliminated. Indeed, the term "employment equity" has been assiduously excised from the Officials* report. 【s the* Board In favour or opposed? * The public will never know because the Trustees/Officials don't have -the fortitude to debate it publicly.
2, The P.A.C. draft policy contained 10 good recommendations to. deal with the problem of streaming minofity youngsters into occupational! and vocational schools. The! officials' report recommends setting up another committee to study the problem? So much for bold, creative decision-making!
3«r The Committee crltJcized the
draft policy because St lacked concrete proposals to improve ESL/D programs. We were assured that the officials' report f would be more specific about ESL/D staffing, etc. Yet the officials8 report approved by Education Committee does not contain an assess-ment of current program or staffing ieve!sP much less proposals to increase staffing in this crucial areae
In its !977 brief to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Scarborough Board contended that it required federal governmenn support in order to provide adequate service to its ESL/D roster: Specifically, it vainly requested funds for 3i、 additional teachersr| 10 teacher-aids, S liaison workers and other resources at a cost of 3750,000. Since 1977; the ESL/D -' roster has grown by about 50%2 yet the Scarborough Board maintains about the same number of ESL/D teachers. Whai was, in 1977, an "inadequate11 program has fiirther deteriorated. If the Metro formulas don't generate enough ESL staff, then Scarborough trustees should work harder to change |' them. In the meantimie, additional' staff should be allocated from local program s。
4. The recommendations regarding racial incidents have been watered down in the officials1 I report. No 'mention is made of dismissing fin compliance with various, codes) unrepentent racists from the Board's employment. What wit! the Board do , if James Keegstra applies for. a job?
5. The officials8 report neglects to a$sign any one person the task , of ensuring implementatjion of
^ the policy, organizing workshops to disseminate the poiic^ or liaise with the multicultural ^mmufiity^ ^ Without someone to monitor the policy and programs, accountability will suffer,
6. The committee , objects \ to many other" changes; contained V -v
in the officials' report. Too numerous to mention here, the main thrust of the&s changes is to replace the pro-active stance of *the P.A.C, with one of reaction and passivity* For example, the P.A.C. recommend^ ed that "school personnel will be expected to: bring , together parents of various cultural and linguistic backgrounds., The officials' report changes this to , read "assist parents of various cultural and linguistic backgrounds to share their concerns"?,. This kind of subtle change undermines the concept of the Board reaching out to its community. In view of recent events, the Board is going to have to engage in Herculean efforts to reach out and involve its many cultural ' communitieso QI course, this assumes the Board truly wants meaningful public input!
The remainder of the officials9 report consists mostly of back-slapping se 1 f -congr a t u I a t ions on all the wonderful things the Scarborough Board is doing for its minorities. Int<erestingly, most of the Board,s current initiatives -were never approved by the Board before the officials went about implementing them。 U / seems a trifle hypocritical of trustees to now pat themselves on the. back for having had such {foresight! 丁he fa'ct is that the key recommendations of the PoAoC. have been ignored。 Any new initiatives in the officials' report are relatively minor and cost nothing to implement. The Committee has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Board is going through the motions. The Board's nne^fn policy on "Race Retations^^thnic Relations and. MuIticu!turaTismn is basically a re-hash of old practices, sugas> coated by a collection of placltudeso HNewt improved!" We think not—not by a long shot! This policy and the process by which it has deveioi>ed has served to alienate members of the Multiculr^ urai and Race Relations Committee more than ever. If trustees think they have solved anything or accomplished some kind of multicuiturai ansSestone^ they ar© sadly m^stakesic