The B.C. Teachers’ Federation is worried about the implications of a British Columbia school accepting funding from the Chinese regime for a bilingual Mandarin program.
The program is a pilot project at an elementary school offered at the kindergarten and grade 1 level in Coquitlam. It has received $10,000 in learning materials through an organization called Confucius Classroom, a subsidiary of Confucius Institute, an agency of the Chinese regime.
B.C.’s education minister Margaret MacDiarmid has endorsed the donation and said the funding means that the cash-strapped school district, which is struggling as a result of the economic downturn like other districts in the province, can afford to offer the language program.
“I think having some outside funding available for a program like this is very helpful,” MacDiarmid said in a media conference call last Friday. “I think that this is very positive to have this support and interest from the government of China.”
But Susan Lambert, president of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation (BCTF), says the province should think twice about accepting the donation, as any time an outside agency—be it a foreign government, corporation, or individual—wants to undertake a sponsorship, there is an underlying reason.
“It’s not altruistic, there is a motivation,” Lambert says.
“So how do we scrutinize that motivation? How do we ensure that a particular project or a particular program doesn’t allow for undue influence of very vulnerable children, and where do we draw the line?”
Cheryl Quinton, communications manager with the Coquitlam school district, says the program follows the B.C. curriculum just like any other language program. What the Confucius Institute has done is donate learning materials to supplement the program.
She says curriculum coordinators ensure the donated materials are in line with the provincial curriculum, and bilingual teachers also check the materials to ensure they are appropriate.
Although Lambert says she believes the program will be well monitored and there won’t be any undue influence through the material, her concern is the precedent this sets while opening the door to allowing people with wealth to have access to children.
“We have tried very, very hard to get corporate influence out of schools, so how is this different? Just because it’s a government agency, is it different? I don’t think so. I think we have to be very worried about that.”
[xtypo_dropcap]S[/xtypo_dropcap]he adds that the BCTF perceives “this funding model is kind of a privatization of a particular course within a public school system, and that’s very worrisome.”
However, MacDiarmid noted that fears of privatization are groundless, as the province fully supports the public education system.
“We are providing over $5 billion annually in financial support from the government for the public education system, so clearly that system is here to stay. I don’t think people need to worry about it being privatized,” she said.
Lambert recounts a case where a principal agreed to have a vending machine in a school at which she taught with the Coca Cola logo prominently advertised in exchange for funding for extracurricular activities.
“For the $5,000 a year for extracurricular activities we promoted Coke in that school. Now what did kids think about that? Well, they think Coke is the drink of choice,” she says.
“The purpose that Coke did that, it wasn’t all altruistic—they wanted to have their brand imprinted on young children in order to benefit their bottom line.”
“We’re using the ministry’s course outline and we determine the materials, resources, etc.,” says Diana Mumford, chair of the Burnaby school board.
“It is our teacher, it is our resources, and we are supporting it financially through our budgeting process. That’s the way we do any of our programs in our district,” she says.
“It allows us the opportunity to make our own decisions in our district, to meet the needs of our students.”
