T
* * * *
Hi,
I am a BC certified teacher working for the Maple Leaf International School in Dalian, China. I teach high school English in the BC program and recently read your article and the related blog posts about the school in Tianjin. As I'm sure you've guessed, many of our teachers have read it.
I first want to say that I thought your article seemed to be missing a great deal of information about the school program accused of academic dishonesty, and you did a good job of making it seem like the Maple Leaf program and the BC offshore programs were in dire straits.
Shannon Davis, the principal complainant, is not a BC certified teacher, doesn't work in the BC program or even in the BC high school, and doesn't teach any BC curriculum. She is an ESL/EFL teacher at the middle school, which is independent of the BC program. My first year with Maple Leaf was with our ESL Middle School program in Dalian, and I was never directly connected to the BC academic program at the high school until I applied for a transfer. I worked with 4-5 other foreign teachers, but I was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese school program staff. The curriculum taught was locally developed, as are most ESL programs overseas. To an outsider this difference can seem irrelevant. However, when you're criticizing a Ministry-certified off-shore program, you should be making a differentiation between certified BC teachers in academic courses under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, and those teaching ESL/EFL/ELL. You do mention that one BC teacher was involved in the complaint, but the person goes unnamed and it is unclear if they are merely lending support to Ms. Davis or if they are making accusations toward the BC program. There is a large difference between the two.
Did you inquire into the reasons for the complaints? Did you attempt to contact other teachers not named in the emails to see if they supported these accusations beyond those who have left? I don't know Ms. Davis, but I would expect that other people beyond the two mentioned in the email would have something to say. I have been working with Maple Leaf for a few years and my dealings with administration in our program have always been professional, and they have never pressured me to increase or inflate grades. I know pressure comes from students, parents, and sometimes from non-BC staff for English grades to be higher, but at the end of the day, our students in the BC program are made accountable by the 40% provincial exam mark in English/Communications 12, which is graded in BC by a group of experienced, trained, and non-Maple-Leaf-affiliated teachers. Furthermore, the accusation of inflating grades would typically refer to report cards and transcripts; however, the middle school (where Ms. Davis is/was an employee) doesn't issue report cards until December. If the accusations were made weeks/months ago, how was Ms. Davis being influenced if the teachers never provided reports to students/parents? Likewise, if her immediate supervisors were forcing her to "give inaccurate grades", in what way did this happen? An ESL curriculum developed for middle school students would obviously be much different than a fully-integrated, BC certified course.
You refer to Ms. Davis by name. You also said that "a couple of the teachers who shared their stories with [you]" were "fleeing China with a plan to write a book about their experiences." Not to nitpick in the details, but using a word like "fleeing" implies that the teacher is in danger of some sort of repercussions beyond losing her job. Refugees flee genocide. Criminals flee a crime scene. If these teachers were leaving, they did not "flee". If people want to leave this job, the door is there. If they are let go, there would be a reason.
I'm curious, too, about the details relating to the school "harass[ing]" them and creating "an unsafe environment". Some detail here would be helpful. Making such statements without specific evidence or detail allows readers to create any sort of myth they choose. I know this rhetorical strategy is effective to sway the minds of your audience, but doesn't it take away from your professional sense of integrity?
As to the inclusion and reference to the audio tape of the staff meeting, you include a single, frustrated quote from Mr. Ryan Waurynchuk, the Tianjin high school principal. You say that it was "possibly the most interesting" piece in the puzzle you were trying to assemble. The thing I found interesting was the reality that the quote doesn't show him being offensive, demeaning, or unprofessional. If Ms. Davis wasn't the one taping the staff meeting, don't you think you should tell readers who it was and explain why they don't step forward to share their grievances publicly? In contrast, it is extremely unprofessional to send a recording of a staff meeting to a newspaper without raising concerns in the proper and expected way first. If a BC teacher was taping this staff meeting, he/she would be stepping outside of profession expectations; teachers are expected to discuss problems and bring issues to administrative bodies before taking them to the next level. Also, if you're going to imply that there was something untoward said in the meeting, why not quote it? Why hide behind the veil of insinuation?
My final point is again related to your intimations that all BC off-shore schools were under fire from the Ministry; you do so in one way by referencing your own article from last year in a related blog post on the Vancouver Sun website. I read last year's article. The accusations in the current article against the BC program refer to the practice in the school of inflating grades to get kids into universities. However, the article you reference from last year stated the following: "Alberta's inspections are much more robust [than Ontario's] and although Cosco didn't review B.C.'s inspection process, she concluded, based on interviews with staff, that they are similar to Alberta's." Wouldn't this show that the BC off-shore schools are actually "robust" and rigorous in meeting and maintaining the standards of the Ministry according to your own references?
Inspectors from the Ministry check planning and curricular documents from the department level (overviews and calendars developed by departments) down to the individual teacher (term, unit, and lesson plans showing both long-term and short-term planning and assessment) to make sure everything is in line. These documents are developed in conjunction with the Ministry-created Prescribed Learning Outcomes for all courses. And this happens every year—schools in BC are inspected only every 5 years. I wonder what your motivation is in criticizing a BC-accredited program that is faithfully maintaining teaching standards in accordance with BC standards. The effect of your article could have ramifications for our students, who legitimately graduate with a BC Dogwood diploma; they could also negatively impact the hard-working teachers who plan to seek employment elsewhere in the future.
My sincere hope is that future articles are more balanced and more thoroughly researched than this current article and other related blog entries.
Articles referenced:
I first want to say that I thought your article seemed to be missing a great deal of information about the school program accused of academic dishonesty, and you did a good job of making it seem like the Maple Leaf program and the BC offshore programs were in dire straits.
Shannon Davis, the principal complainant, is not a BC certified teacher, doesn't work in the BC program or even in the BC high school, and doesn't teach any BC curriculum. She is an ESL/EFL teacher at the middle school, which is independent of the BC program. My first year with Maple Leaf was with our ESL Middle School program in Dalian, and I was never directly connected to the BC academic program at the high school until I applied for a transfer. I worked with 4-5 other foreign teachers, but I was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese school program staff. The curriculum taught was locally developed, as are most ESL programs overseas. To an outsider this difference can seem irrelevant. However, when you're criticizing a Ministry-certified off-shore program, you should be making a differentiation between certified BC teachers in academic courses under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, and those teaching ESL/EFL/ELL. You do mention that one BC teacher was involved in the complaint, but the person goes unnamed and it is unclear if they are merely lending support to Ms. Davis or if they are making accusations toward the BC program. There is a large difference between the two.
Did you inquire into the reasons for the complaints? Did you attempt to contact other teachers not named in the emails to see if they supported these accusations beyond those who have left? I don't know Ms. Davis, but I would expect that other people beyond the two mentioned in the email would have something to say. I have been working with Maple Leaf for a few years and my dealings with administration in our program have always been professional, and they have never pressured me to increase or inflate grades. I know pressure comes from students, parents, and sometimes from non-BC staff for English grades to be higher, but at the end of the day, our students in the BC program are made accountable by the 40% provincial exam mark in English/Communications 12, which is graded in BC by a group of experienced, trained, and non-Maple-Leaf-affiliated teachers. Furthermore, the accusation of inflating grades would typically refer to report cards and transcripts; however, the middle school (where Ms. Davis is/was an employee) doesn't issue report cards until December. If the accusations were made weeks/months ago, how was Ms. Davis being influenced if the teachers never provided reports to students/parents? Likewise, if her immediate supervisors were forcing her to "give inaccurate grades", in what way did this happen? An ESL curriculum developed for middle school students would obviously be much different than a fully-integrated, BC certified course.
You refer to Ms. Davis by name. You also said that "a couple of the teachers who shared their stories with [you]" were "fleeing China with a plan to write a book about their experiences." Not to nitpick in the details, but using a word like "fleeing" implies that the teacher is in danger of some sort of repercussions beyond losing her job. Refugees flee genocide. Criminals flee a crime scene. If these teachers were leaving, they did not "flee". If people want to leave this job, the door is there. If they are let go, there would be a reason.
I'm curious, too, about the details relating to the school "harass[ing]" them and creating "an unsafe environment". Some detail here would be helpful. Making such statements without specific evidence or detail allows readers to create any sort of myth they choose. I know this rhetorical strategy is effective to sway the minds of your audience, but doesn't it take away from your professional sense of integrity?
As to the inclusion and reference to the audio tape of the staff meeting, you include a single, frustrated quote from Mr. Ryan Waurynchuk, the Tianjin high school principal. You say that it was "possibly the most interesting" piece in the puzzle you were trying to assemble. The thing I found interesting was the reality that the quote doesn't show him being offensive, demeaning, or unprofessional. If Ms. Davis wasn't the one taping the staff meeting, don't you think you should tell readers who it was and explain why they don't step forward to share their grievances publicly? In contrast, it is extremely unprofessional to send a recording of a staff meeting to a newspaper without raising concerns in the proper and expected way first. If a BC teacher was taping this staff meeting, he/she would be stepping outside of profession expectations; teachers are expected to discuss problems and bring issues to administrative bodies before taking them to the next level. Also, if you're going to imply that there was something untoward said in the meeting, why not quote it? Why hide behind the veil of insinuation?
My final point is again related to your intimations that all BC off-shore schools were under fire from the Ministry; you do so in one way by referencing your own article from last year in a related blog post on the Vancouver Sun website. I read last year's article. The accusations in the current article against the BC program refer to the practice in the school of inflating grades to get kids into universities. However, the article you reference from last year stated the following: "Alberta's inspections are much more robust [than Ontario's] and although Cosco didn't review B.C.'s inspection process, she concluded, based on interviews with staff, that they are similar to Alberta's." Wouldn't this show that the BC off-shore schools are actually "robust" and rigorous in meeting and maintaining the standards of the Ministry according to your own references?
Inspectors from the Ministry check planning and curricular documents from the department level (overviews and calendars developed by departments) down to the individual teacher (term, unit, and lesson plans showing both long-term and short-term planning and assessment) to make sure everything is in line. These documents are developed in conjunction with the Ministry-created Prescribed Learning Outcomes for all courses. And this happens every year—schools in BC are inspected only every 5 years. I wonder what your motivation is in criticizing a BC-accredited program that is faithfully maintaining teaching standards in accordance with BC standards. The effect of your article could have ramifications for our students, who legitimately graduate with a BC Dogwood diploma; they could also negatively impact the hard-working teachers who plan to seek employment elsewhere in the future.
My sincere hope is that future articles are more balanced and more thoroughly researched than this current article and other related blog entries.
Articles referenced:
