Africentered Alternative Schooling

Yesterday, the Toronto District School Board voted in an 11-9 decision to allow a pilot project to go forward establishing an "Africentered" or "Black-focused" school. It is estimated that the dropout rates amongst Black youth in the Toronto area is roughly 40%. In order to curb this tide, the Board opted for this type of institution, which is scheduled to open in September 2009.

Although it is still to be determined how the curriculum is to be shaped, one wonders about the advisability of undertaking this endeavor and the precedent it may set. Do Black school children need to be isolated in a special school in order to learn and remain in school? The creation of a Black-focused school also seems to presume a certain monolithic quality about the community. Indeed, the community is diverse drawing from families who have lived in Canada for generations, to more recent immigrant populations from Africa and the Carribbean. How would an Africentered respond to such heterogeneity and would it be sufficient?

One source seemed to suggest that the high drop out rate was attributable to a lack of interest amongst the students for the subjects taught in the current curriculum. For example: "[m]any students say they would do better if they learned about their heritage, but who knows about Mathieu da Costa, (a navigator of African descent) who came to Canada in 1603 as a translator in Champlain's expeditions." http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/298714

I find such reasons unconvincing. When I attended high school, (admittedly more than a few years ago), we had more than a few students who were part of visible minority communities. They were able to pass (and notably not drop out), notwithstanding the fact that the history classes were largely western-centric. I do not doubt that school could and should be made more interesting, and that curricula should be modified to account for the greater diversity that is existent in modern North American urban centres. Students across the board would benefit from such changes.

For example, a history course in high school could take into account other areas of focus that have hitherto been unexplored. This might include historical agents amongst women, the working classes, visible minorities and/or other historically marginalized communities, seeking to gain equal rights and opportunities through mediums other than political parties that excluded their participation. A new curriculum could include the attempts to effect changes in the law through litigation. For example, the successful efforts of the NAACP to have segregation struck down as unconstitutional or the use of civil disobedience to protest against unequal treatment on the basis of race. Or more recently, the efforts of same-sex couples, in both Canada and the United States who sought the right to be married and were able to achieve such change through court challenges. Rather than being a mere exercise in memorization of dates and events, history can be taught in a way that inspires students about the struggles that people took throughout history to effect change. This isn't to completely sidestep traditional historical subjects of course, but some favourite topics and ways of examining them may have to be set aside for others to be incorporated. The underlying point however is that separate schools are not necessary to have a more inclusive curriculum.

If (some) Black students need separate heritage-focused education in order to excel, what happens once they graduate from high school? Will such students need to be provided further heritage-focused education in University to maintain their momentum? Will they be able to compete academically with other students when they are once again faced with a "boring" non-heritage-focused curriculum? Will such schools be able to prepare students for what lies ahead?

These questions are not intended to be rhetorical or flippant, but should be part of the discussion. In all events, the pilot project will be observed from many quarters.