The debate over the creation of an Africentric alternative school has divided Toronto’s black community and the Toronto District School Board which narrowly approved the plan.
The school will teach an altered curriculum meant to incorporate the background of black students. But the idea of creating a “separate -but-equal” system has been denounced by critics as a backward step toward segregation and a rude awakening from Martin Luther King’s dream.
While this rhetoric comes naturally to Canadians eager to emphasize multiculturalism, Canada is not forcing separation. Like King, Jim Crow laws and Brown v. Board of Education are completely foreign to our history.
In fact, the Toronto proposal has been pushed largely by parents within the black community frustrated that 40 per cent of black students in the public system do not graduate.
This is roughly double the failure rate of non-black students.
Parents in favour of Africentric schools had proposed opening three schools in 2008, but the school board decided to begin with one school and evaluate its performance before any further action.
The new school, scheduled to open in September 2009, will likely need to improve the graduation rates immediately or risk closure.
An “African-infused curriculum” will be in place by the time the school opens, but what that will entail remains a significant point of concern.
Detractors have argued that a curriculum cannot be designed with a singular focus on cultural studies. They worry that students will be misled by an overemphasis on positive contributions of Egypt and other civilizations on world history with a minimization or denial of negative aspects such as the African responsibility in supplying the slave trade.
Ultimately, they argue the basic learning skills needed to compete in a globalized world will suffer as a result of this curriculum emphasis.
In contrast, black parents providing feedback at public meetings have emphasized the importance of world history to offer the background and context of black struggles.
This curriculum and school will be created using public money, $350,000 for the school itself with a total of $820,000 for the full plan of establishing and utilizing the alternate curriculum, starting a research centre with post-secondary institutions, developing a plan to improve the success of marginalized students and then addressing it.
This is simply too much money coming out of the public purse for many Toronto residents to accept, but supporters of the schools can justifiably ask why they have paid and continue to pay taxes into a public school system that is not working for their own children?
Even if the Africentric school has been pushed by black parents, many members of the Toronto black community say that segregation by choice amounts to the same thing. It will simply ghettoize black students the way that housing projects have led to a concentration of gangs, crime and other social problems.
The critics say that these socio-economic problems are what have been ignored throughout the debate. They say students of all
ethnicities need the same things: hard work, proper curricula and sup
portive parents and administrators. It is naïve to think that an emphasis on the glory of the African civilizations could fix all of these core problems in the community and some argue that this school is legitimizing the idea that black children need to be taught differently.
But surely, there is a chance this school can succeed and it is already clear the public system is failing. What should be encouraging is the passion those in favour of this school are bringing to the planning stages in order to address all of these criticisms in advance. The parents say they are trying to avoid ghettoizing their children and insist on uniforms at the school.
There is also hope the core problems could also be addressed at a school that will have parents, teachers and administrators with a commitment to making clear improvements in the education of these black students.
The parents say they are not looking to present a narrow view to their children but rather expose them to a wide range of black role models in academia, science, business and government.
This stands in contrast to the presentation they would otherwise see of black people as athletes and entertainers.
When this school does open in 2009 no one will be forced in, black parents who have lobbied for this right to choose how their children are educated will finally have a choice.
These parents should not have their children trapped in a system where they perform worse and drop out in significantly higher rates.
Clearly, the opponents of the Africentric school – who need not enroll their own children – should not have the right to block parents who want a choice.
This new approach will add an alternative choice to a system that has ignored a daunting problem for too long.
This choice can only serve to enhance public school competition as parents choose where to enroll their children based on performance results of schools rather than forced entry into a failing system.