Stones for bread: the training of Catholic teachers.

The following article is based on a talk delivered in the Spring of 1997 to a group of Toronto Catholics who meet at the home of their hostess for monthly discussions. The author had just completed the one-year Teachers' College program at OISE/UT, the name given the University of Toronto's Faculty of Education now that it has been merged with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Like other articles we have printed, this one, too, is concerned about the "catholicity" of our teachers or, more accurately, the lack thereof. In the past there have been complaints about all Catholic education courses for incoming Catholic teachers in Toronto, introductory and more advanced. It is always difficult to document these complaints, valid as they undoubtedly are. Without chapter and verse there is nothing one can do. Moreover, many student teachers are ill-informed about the principles of the Catholic faith and, therefore, are simply incapable of evaluating what is set out before them. The report below is different.

Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the incidents concerning public health nurses described below. PHN's are thoroughly schooled in Planned Parenthood's anti-child, anti-family ideology. There are always exceptions, but in general PHN's should never be allowed to teach sexuality education in Catholic schools.

There are many "options" within this Faculty of Education for its teacher candidates, including one for the Metropolitan Separate School Board - MSSB option for short - which exists for teachers who wish to work for the Catholic school system.

On registration day, we were all addressed by Father William Russell, a religious education instructor for the Catholic options, who said that the goal of the MSSB option was to produce Catholic educators.

The question I want to discuss is: "Does the MSSB option fulfill its goal?" I base my answer on the faculty's approach and on a number of incidents which took place this year. I shall outline some of these. It is hard to pare them down to even the major ones.

Staff

Let me introduce you first to our option staff, and let me say that their oft-repeated instruction to us students was, " `Model' the behaviour you expect of your students."

The coordinator of the program was Tom Davies, an inactive priest, now married. Clare Kosnik, a Program Organization instructor, is a confessing Catholic. Linda Cameron, our Language Arts instructor, is not a Catholic, was raised Baptist, and suffered, she said, from fundamentalism at Baptist hands. Sandy Folk, the Math and Science instructor, is Jewish. Maria Cantalini Williams, the Child Psychology teacher, is a Catholic.

I had expected that a teaching option intent on producing Catholic educators would have provided Catholic teachers as models for their students, but the faith of our instructors was never a topic for discussion. We learned about their faiths through by-the-way statements made by them through the course of the year.

The religious education team which was included in our option was made up of Father Russell, Joan Daly Martin, and John Molloy. I had minimal contact with them because I had been exempted from their instruction since I had a major in Christianity and Culture, and, according to Father Russell, "knew this stuff." The Religious Education course, I was told, was for those who had minimal instruction in Religious Studies--for those who, for example, had had no religious instruction since grade school. By the way, their religious education text was Theology for Teachers by Father Ian Knox, which was reviewed unfavourably in Catholic Insight (July/August 1996).

The option staff were very friendly from the beginning. I, however, found their manner disconcerting; they were almost too friendly. None of us knew the others, yet we were all invited to act as if we were all best friends. Everyone, students, and staff alike, was on a first-name basis from the start. The atmosphere seemed superficial. I hoped I wasn't just a wet blanket.

Overnight retreat

Evidence of superficiality came during the first week of school when we were made to go on a two-day, overnight retreat at a renewal centre in Mississauga. The purpose of the retreat was stated explicitly by coordinator Davies: "We are not going on retreat to pray. I guess you could have a religious experience if you wanted but the purpose of it is just to get to know one another."

Two incidents at that retreat stand out in my mind. The first was the meal-time chat with the Language Arts instructor, who spoke happily of her divorced husband and new "partner", and a male teacher candidate in his early twenties who also spoke casually of his live-in girlfriend.

The second incident was the one and only Mass on the closing day of the retreat, which featured music by John Lennon, and a woman proclaimer of the Gospel. Mind you, Father Russell was careful here: the woman read all the Gospel except direct quotations of Jesus. These Father Russell read.

On the way home I spoke to a fellow teacher candidate who asked for my impressions. I told him I was perplexed. I cited the Gospel reading. He felt the situation was as Tom Davies and Father Russell had explained on the previous evening to those who had stayed up for a beer-drinking social: the Church is changing, it needs to be more democratic. Both Father Russell and Tom had that night revealed their support for women's ordination.

Pedagogical trends

Back at our campus--our option ran three days a week out of a Catholic grade school, Stella Maris--our instruction across the curriculum seemed to be focussed on pedagogical trends. "Whole language" was praised, but not defined. "Cooperative learning" was stressed as a must, but the only manifestations of this term's meaning were classes set up in groups, not rows, and peer evaluation (and self-evaluation). We were introduced in a superficial way to certain sections of the common curriculum, but this document was never seriously scrutinized or analyzed. We students were merely alerted to the fact that our teaching must conform to its expectations (whatever they were).

The Ontario Tory government in general and the Minister of Education John Snobelen in particular were derided throughout the year as education's biggest threat, but the threat was never explained. We were told that "student-centred" learning is good and "teacher-directed" learning is bad, but these terms were never defined. "Teacher-directed" learning was dismissed as "traditional."

Until my year at teacher's college, I did not know that tradition was a dirty word. Students ought not to sit in rows because that is traditional. Teachers ought not to stand in front of their students and teach because that is traditional. Teachers who stand at the front of the classroom and ask their students questions are guilty of employing a teacher-directed, traditional approach.

Much emphasis was placed on "hands-on" learning, and it is true that students will learn by doing. I found helpful the advice in Math and Science classes that we have children work with manipulatives and concrete materials in order to teach them abstract concepts.

No objective truth

But the valid points we were taught seemed always to be undermined by the unexpressed philosophy that there was no objective truth. We were told insistently to have "open minds," and to "respect the opinions of others" without reference to what those opinions were. Discussions of multiculturalism, the darling topic of social studies, and language arts always took place within this subjective context.

Linda Cameron, our language instructor, had informed us at the beginning of the year that our option staff were all constructivists. This term sounded good, but what it meant was that our instructors subscribed to a philosophy which held that meaning is constructed, fabricated, manufactured, not discovered.

The U.S. Supreme Court came up with a constructivist definition of freedom in a recent decision which said, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." This decision was the Court's excuse for outlawing all restrictions on abortion.

Being relevant

There was constant talk about learning being made "relevant", "meaningful" to the student, which is fine, you would think, but it ended up meaning that if the student does not find interesting the topic of, let's say, the structure of Canadian government, the topic should be dropped from the curriculum. This is a subjectivist approach: relevancy is not established by the truth or falsity of some point, or even by "It is good for you to know this because . . . ." Rather, relevancy is determined by one's like or dislike of the subject, and that like or dislike is to be made the basis of the curriculum.

It is principally the student who loses out when such an approach to teaching is adopted. The student does not gather information; he learns to fixate on his feelings.

That is a sketch of our general program in the MSSB option. It was supposed to be producing Catholic educators. I found the program incompatible with Catholicism.

I don't think the following incidents are compatible with the production of Catholic educators, either.

Clare Kosnik was talking to us one day about ways in which we might teach novels--a good topic, of course. She drew on her own experience as a Grade 6 teacher. She had been reading a novel with her class about early immigrants to Canada. She recalled a "humorous" question raised by one of her students: "Miss, did homosexuality occur a lot when the men were without women?" Mrs. Kosnik believed she responded in the best way to the question when she replied, "I don't know; what do you think?"

Next, Mrs. Kosnik began to reflect on the likelihood of Grade 6 children asking such questions. She again drew on her experience. She recalled that her students wanted books on AIDS, anorexia, and sex. She kept a small collection of books in her classroom, one of which was in constant demand. It was a book which explained sex, she said, and contained information on condoms and birth control. Thinking the book to be controversial, she informed her principal of its use in her classroom. She left the decision to him as to whether the book should remain. He told her, "Clare, let the book stay." Her point in relaying this information, she said, was that students will ask these questions, and we can't avoid these issues.

I concurred that these issues will come up, and asked her, since the issue had been raised, "Did your principal not violate his mandate to uphold the Catholicity of the school when he sanctioned the use of a book which promoted contraception?" There was a momentary pause, as though Mrs. Kosnik needed time to process my question, and then she responded, without any sense of irony, "Yes."

Many classmates then began speaking to my question. I was reminded that not all my students might be Catholic and that, therefore, contraceptive information was permissible; again it was pointed out that it is a fact that many kids are sexually active and need protection and that we, therefore, cannot afford to ignore these issues. All such comments seemed to meet with Mrs. Kosnik's approval.

It is very difficult to get a word in edgewise during these moments, but I did manage to strike a glancing blow to the comment that "we can't afford to ignore these issues." I asked where they had learned that the Church advocated ignoring the issue of contraception. I pointed out that, on the contrary, the Church had investigated the issue of contraception fully, and, based on its extensive investigation, had condemned it. I asked if my peers were familiar with the reasons behind the condemnation of contraception, and, if they were not, wasn't it high time they investigated the matter?

My instructor's response to all this was to close the discussion with the words, "Is it hot in here?" (words greeted with nervous laughter), and the general advice not to stop questioning, wondering, because, if you do, you will not become a thoughtful practitioner but a mechanical one.

In my second round of practice teaching, a three-week placement in a Grade 7 classroom of a Toronto Catholic school, I was invited to become a mechanical practitioner.

Public health nurses in the classroom

My teaching block coincided with three scheduled visits of the Public Health nurse. I shall attempt to condense a long story. You should know that religion, a mere 25-minute daily block of time, was never taught during my stay at the school nor was I invited to teach it. I myself requested on a couple of occasions to teach religion during this period, and thankfully, was allowed to.

That religion period, along with another 30 minutes, was twice given over to the public health nurse presentation. The first of the two presentations I witnessed was ostensibly on the topic of puberty. What it ended up being, to my dismay and shock, was a corruption session.

The nurse thought it wise to begin her talk by reminding the students of a need for respect. Respect ended up meaning that one religion wasn't any better than another.

The session dwelt at length and in graphic detail on the maturation and function of the sex organs. Then the Grade 7 students were asked to respond True or False to a list of questions, one of which was: "True or False: It is common to have crushes on someone of the same sex at puberty." Answer: "True; it's okay to like someone of the same sex."

One thoughtful fellow ventured to ask the nurse, "What if the person of the same sex starts hitting on you?" The public health nurse responded that you can definitely get out of that situation if you are uncomfortable.

The kids were also asked what percentage of teens had had sex before the end of high school: 40%, 50%, or more? The answer? About 40%. I wondered what was the point of such a question.

Someone asked a question about condoms. The nurse said they were needed to prevent pregnancy and disease.

The mood of the class changed dramatically at the onset of this discussion. The room was filled with nervous, forced, or seemingly lascivious laughter. Some boys began to ask questions of a perverted nature. The students had been invited to consider immoral behaviour, and many were doing as they had been invited.

All I could do, I felt, was record the proceedings. My host teacher was present throughout the hour-long presentation, and did not intervene. The following day I requested and was granted permission to use the religion period to attempt to undo the damage done by the public health nurse. I laid heavy emphasis on the point that sex was not a topic for idle discussion. I gave the kids the Church teaching on the proper use of sexuality, and her teachings on contraception and homosexuality. There was a marked difference in the way the students received this information; they were clam and attentive. One student asked at the end of my talk if homosexuals could marry. I replied that homosexuals have always had the right to marry, as long as it was someone of the opposite sex (a point stolen from Joseph Sobran).

Round Two

I was not forewarned of the next public health nurse visit, which took place the following week. Once again, under the guise of an AIDS education session, an hour had been allotted to a representative of the Public Health Board to tell Catholic children that immoral activity was just fine. The nurse was new; her message was not. Apparently, in order not to contract AIDS, students needed to be told that masturbation could not be bad for your health, and that parental permission to buy birth control pills was not needed.

These questions were again cast in the form of true or false questions within a "Jeopardy" style game. It is instructive that on the last-mentioned question the students had answered as a class that they thought parental permission would be necessary.

A sexually explicit discussion

Again the graphic, sexually explicit discussion of the development of sex organs was undertaken, and again a riotous classroom atmosphere was created. The students were introduced to the host of contraceptives available (Norplant, the diaphragm, the Pill, condoms . . .), told where they were available, and treated to explicit instructions on how to employ these. They were given the good news that a female condom would soon be commercially available.

My teacher came by where I was, and I gave her a grave look. She leaned towards me and in a patronizing tone told me that nothing wrong was taking place - the students were merely being given the facts. I told her it was a corruption session. Her response was to tell me to "Get with the 90s!" I said, "Do you mind if I speak to the principal about this?" She said, "No," not without defiance.

I went to the principal. He returned with me to the classroom, and spoke to both my host teacher and the nurse out of my presence. The nurse's talk wound up shortly after his leaving. I was allowed, once again, to address the class to attempt to undo the damage. It struck me afterward that, through "visits" of this nature, the Public Health Department had allowed itself to become an agent of contraceptive companies and outfits like Planned Parenthood who do not make one cent off of chaste children. The nurses' visits were not promoting health; they were promoting sexual immorality for profit. There is a name for that.

Staff meeting

An emergency intermediate division staff meeting was called at lunch time. I admired the principal for this (as I did for his cancellation of the third public health visit); I only wish he had put the emphasis on the importance of knowing and transmitting Catholic doctrine on sexuality to the students instead of where he put it, on the necessity of sticking to the Fully Alive Family Life Education program (approved by the Ontario bishops). I could see the holes in Fully Alive immediately when one of the teachers at the meeting attempted a defence of the nurse's presentation on the ground that Fully Alive itself taught about condoms.

Back to the instructors

But this is an incident that happened in an MSSB school, not in the MSSB option. So why am I reporting it? Because in my third placement, at a different school, Clare Kosnik, the instructor who had overseen all three of my placements, advised my new host teacher--in confidence, but my teacher later told me--not to let me teach the human sexuality component of Fully Alive. Why? She wasn't free to say, but "Trust me as a professional," she told my host teacher.

Physical education

All teacher candidates in our option were required, as a group, to take physical education, music and art instruction at the Faculty of Education on Bloor Street. Our phys ed instructor, during his first talk on health, made the comment that he was aware of the Catholic position on homosexuality, but the reality was that we were going to be teaching homosexuals, so it was an issue we could no longer shut our eyes to.

His comment was received warmly. I decided to challenge his notion that Catholic teaching should turn a blind eye to the question of homosexuality. I asked him if he thought it responsible for a teacher to encourage a child to pursue homosexual activity. I asked him if he could give me assurance that such activity posed no threat to the physical health of the child. His response was that that was a choice for the student to make. I did not have to worry, because I did not have to make it for the student.

Anyone else who spoke in the class spoke against my points, and busied themselves with assuring the gym teacher that he was right and I was wrong. He welcomed their comments.

A few months later this gym instructor came to deliver what was to be a follow-up joint health education talk with Father William Russell. Father Russell did not attend this talk, but Joan Daly Martin, one of the religious ed team, did. She came with a Mr. Ralph Peters, who had previously addressed our option at a religion class at which I was not present.

This health talk opened up with the gym teacher asking for definitions of health, and, after receiving these, informing us that health is in the eye of the beholder. Joan and Ralph did not blink an eye at this teaching.

From there the gym teacher turned to telling us why sex education in the school was a necessity: to dispel the erroneous notions about sex the students are likely to pick up from various sources. I wondered what could be erroneous when health was whatever anyone said it was.

Layers of ignorance

One of my classmates asked the gym teacher how she should have responded to a parent's request to have her child removed from the sex ed instruction. The gym teacher asked in perplexity what objection the parent could possibly have had--and suggested that perhaps the parent was not interested in the child's learning the proper names for certain body parts. Class laughter ensued.

I noted out loud the stereotyping of such parents as lovers of ignorance, and the non-answer to my classmate's question. I continued that parents were the primary educators of their children, and had every right to remove their children from such instruction, and that we as Catholic educators should certainly know this.

Ralph Peters quickly intervened. He acknowledged that parents were regarded by the Church as the primary educators of their children, but continued placing heavy emphasis on the point that the Pope required of the faithful that they listen to their bishops. Our bishops had approved the Fully Alive program. He did not see fit to mention Archbishop Ambrozic's 1992 statement reaffirming parents' rights to remove their children from this instruction.

Soft-pedalling homosexuality

The question of homosexuality was raised. Ralph informed the class that, while homosexual activity was not permitted by the Church, nevertheless homosexual orientation was not sinful, and homophobia was certainly a disorder. ("Homophobia", if it means anything genuine, means the normal and natural disgust that a normal person has for sodomy, and that is certainly not a disorder.)

Ralph's assertion prompted this from one student: "Well, if it's okay to be a homosexual, why can the homosexual not act on his feelings?" Ralph shrugged as much as to say, "You've got me there!" He did not see fit to mention that the homosexual "orientation" is itself a disorder.

Contraception

The question of contraception arose. Ralph informed the class that the different methods of contraception were outlined in Fully Alive, and their respective employments explained. [Fully Alive ought to changes its title to Fully Nonexistent.] He did make reference to the text's understanding that the Church does not think that contraception is all right.

This prompted one teacher student to inform the class that, if he knew he had a sexually active girl in his class, he would want to give her all the information she needed to make an informed choice. Ralph and Joan's response? In very pointed tones they answered, "What we would suggest is that you speak to your principal first, and the school social worker."

Thereupon I asked if I was correct in understanding a suggestion here that if a principal or social worker approved of the promotion of contraception, then the Catholic educator would be free to dispense such information. I was informed in thickly patronizing tones that that was never said. I replied, "Good! I just wanted to make sure that my classmates knew that such a course of action could never be acceptable." In a later discussion concerning Fully Alive, whose flaws I was explaining to the class in a ten-minute presentation, the same student who was for "informed decisions", harking back to Ralph's endorsement of Fully Alive, made the comment that, since I criticized Fully Alive, I was not fit to teach in an MSSB school. Our psychology teacher did not reply. I did. I said, "Oh. In other words, Catholics need not apply." At year's end OECTA (Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association) chose this student to receive its award for excellence.

Homosexuality once more

The last incident I will relate has to do with one of our teacher-student's comments concerning homosexuality. In an end-of-the-year discussion, this young woman, in a group which included Tom Davies, expressed her belief that homosexuality was something good and beautiful and deserving our respect. She quoted a poem to that effect. One brave member of that group responded, "Doesn't what you are saying go against Church teaching?" At that everyone, including Mr. Davies, started at the questioner as though her comment were in need of defending. The student promoter of homosexuality informed her questioner, "Homosexuality is out there." The coordinator's response? Complete and utter silence!

Perhaps Tom was only following the advice he had given us by way of a handout distributed early in the year. The handout had to do with "classroom management", once upon a time known as discipline, but, of course, that is a "traditional" term. The handout showed two columns, one labelled Logical Consequences, the other, Punishment. Under Logical Consequences to poor student behaviour came the advice: (make) No moral judgement; (give) No sermon. In the Punishment column: "Implied morality, or sermon on right and wrong" were rejected as errors.

It was not just that questions of good and evil were not raised; here they were explicitly rejected.

I spoke too soon when I said that was my last item. I have one more. The Director of Student Services at OISE/UT, a man by the name of Gary Hunt, advised the MSSB option students at an employment conference to "Make yourself look Catholic" when applying to a Catholic board, and if applying to a public board, "Downplay your Catholic experience." This same man, at the beginning of the year, had invited members of our option to volunteer the help of our "siblings, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, partners, and live-ins," at a skating party the faculty was running.

I once attended a Catholic school whose motto was Esse quam videri, which means To be rather than to seem. There is much evidence that the MSSB teachers of teachers have reversed that motto.

All of us need conversion. After ourselves, however, perhaps the first people on the list should be those who hire this staff. Does anyone know who they are?

P.S. The premise of not judging - the ubiquitous exhortation in the course - is self-contradictory: for it is a judgement commanding that one not judge. ("Judge not according to appearances but judge just judgement." John 7:24)