The bigger picture

I am noticing a disconcerting trend with media and in particular social media right now. There seems to be a false understanding that if we tweet about something or paste it up on facebook then we are being 'transparent' with information. When we tweet what 'goes on' in a meeting we are, of course, only tweeting particular highlights. Although interesting, these are simply the 'bits n' pieces'  that one person feels worthy of tweeting; we can't possibly understand the full conversation or the context of that meeting from just this.  It is worth reminding ourselves that we are not being provided with the entire story and all of the necessary background information to make an informed decision. Very few people go further and discuss more than the very surface level of the possible threats and opportunities to a given situation or scenario.

It is relatively easy to tear a particular organization or system apart. It is not difficult to criticize spending;  pull apart a budget line by line and then pronounce on some aspect or another 'mis-spending'! The challenge is in having some viable alternatives and in recognizing that most human systems have something that we could learn from and keep.  Once we decide what can and should be kept we can then collectively discuss what needs to be adapted or migrated in to fit within an improved system.

Mainstream media these days is particularly guilty of this minimalist story-telling and too many of us fall for its faux-accuracy. We read something in the paper and believe that it must be fact; that the reporter must have done his/her research and the all-important fact-finding, fact-checking background work. But what if that is not the case? What is the result when a 'piece' is duct-taped together from a few non-contextual quotes, some 'numbers' and a big dollop of bias?

There are very few journalists who provide the full scope of the story. Important facts are left out and pieces of peoples interviews are chopped and made to fit into their slant on the story. So how do we fight this? Recognizing and accepting that it goes on is the first step. We need to be aware of what informs our thinking and then our opinions (I have MUCH work to do here) and ask ourselves if what we are reading, hearing and comprehending, intelligently contributes and expands on the information that we already have. Thinking about our thinking; easier said than done I know but critical if we are to improve the quality of what we ourselves post and of what we read by others. 

Advocacy end game?

I am concerned about the ‘tone’ of the political discourse in our Province. In particular, voices of dissent. Discussions, articles and stories about people being ‘afraid to speak out’ regarding this government’s policy/budget decisions have been going on for as long as I have been paying attention to politics. I have listened to the conversations but never really thought much if it; I suppose I thought that ‘it ‘s just part of the deal’ of engaging in political commentary. I’m thinking about it now; a great deal.

On May 5th in the Edmonton Journal there was an article by Sheila Pratt called, How the Code of Silence Works . The article has stuck with me for over a month. I ran into some ‘conflicts’ myself recently during my time as a government of Alberta employee. At the same time as being an employee I was also on the Executive of a local non-profit; and on behalf of that non profit (as a parent advocate) I was speaking out publicly about education cuts. I was also very open about my membership with the Alberta Party. As a result, my blogs and emails were being tracked by government officials. Some of my posts were deemed to be ‘unacceptable’ by these government ‘watchers’. I know this because my direct employer in the public service of Alberta was contacted by PR and Communications who in turn called me to advise that my social media posts were of concern. Big Brother was on to me.

From that moment on I realized that though I believed I was performing a professional job of separating my roles with the various organizations I worked on behalf of in order to avoid any ‘conflict’; I had failed. But not because my efforts were insufficient; rather, because my ‘voice of dissent’ had appeared on the government’s radar and they felt compelled to act. 

It is more than a little daunting to have your employer tell you that you are being tracked and as a result to be very careful of what you are saying and writing. In my case I was diligent not to identify myself as a GOA employee when representing other organizations and always had a disclaimer on my blog, twitter and facebook that the views I was sharing were my own. I also had that I worked for the Alberta Government, which I removed upon their request. Shouldn’t that be enough? I notice on twitter that it is not uncommon for Government employees to have a personal twitter page where they do the same as I did and clearly state that the views are their own and also that they work for the government. The difference: they are not speaking out against any government policies. 

This is not just a government issue, I get that. I fully understand that there are companies, outside of government, who are very cautious of what their employees are saying outside of the workplace. Many of us have worked in an environment where we must be very careful of the public roles that we have outside of our employment as we can always be linked back to our place of employment. Many of us do work with non profits and sit on boards, which can become very public roles. We must decide before we accept these positions if this is a conflict for us and for our employer. But then, knowing all this and yet forging ahead and taking on various roles outside of direct employment (in other words, displaying leadership) seems to make some employers, especially government, very uncomfortable. 

To be clear, the ‘official’ discussion with me was predicated on the faux issue of whether my on-line commentary could be linked to me as an employee of the government in some fashion. But of course the reality of the online universe is that with very little effort anyone who wanted to find out could discover that I was a GOA employee.  

The bottom line is that this Conservative government did not want me to have anything on my social media pages or me speaking with media if it countered its policy/budget decisions. 

So, what is the fear? I understand that we must be respectful of our employers and the code of ethics that we agree to when we accept our positions. 

But, we are citizens first, before employees of whatever organization we choose to work in. We MUST be able to speak out against issues that we feel are hurting our democracy, our future, our planet and (near and dear to my heart), our children's education; without fear of retribution. 

No one I know wears only one hat or identifies themselves as only an employee or parent or volunteer. We are all made up of many parts and must be able to be involved with the groups and issues that inspire us and to then advocate for them. This is what contributes to strong citizen engagement and the kind of civil society we want to live in. What we want is a society that is fueled by educated, imaginative, creative, passionate and engaged people. Right?

 We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.  ~Edward R. Murrow

By: Eryn Kelly

Assessment in our schools

Parkland School Division has been using 'comprehensive reporting', for elementary student assessment. They use three standards, rather than letter grades or marks. They are now rolling this out to Junior Highs. Several School divisions are moving to this type of assessment.

What are your thoughts? How important is a letter grade or percentage for your child and for YOU? Does it encourage deeper/further LEARNING or does it label and box kids in? Would you support this in your kids school? What is assessment intended for?