Ed, Thanks for your latest info on the education services in Canada. There are several different issues intertwined -- efficacy of tax cuts; private versus public schools; curricula and appropriate length of education. This is complicated enough without my trying to comment on education in a country so very different from my own. (However, you are probably luckier than England in that, being a large country, Canada is already fairly highly decentralised. In England, as I am constantly harping on about, we have a state education system which is run in almost every detail from Whitehall, London. The bureaucratic stress which this imposes on the teachers is the reason why thousands of experienced teachers leave every year, why a quarter of newly qualified teachers never continue with their careers (once they have had some teaching practice in schools and see what actually goes on) and why, in short, the whole system is breaking down.)
But our experience over here doesn't seem so very different from America's public school system with its smaller boards of education at state level. Also, considering the problems that France, Germany and Japan are experiencing in their state systems, it would seem that there's something far more serious going on in the basic assumptions that are made in developed countries. Certainly a significant proportion of post-puberty children, particularly boys, are thoroughly bored with school and considered attendance at school as something akin to prison. Keith At 16:58 02/12/02 -0500, you wrote: >Keith Hudson: > >> (EW) >> <<<< >> In Canada, we now have a number of >> provincial governments that operate from a neo-liberal perspective, >> believing, it would seem without much foundation, that private enterprise >> is "good" and public enterprise is "bad". While far from being as harmful >> as Pol Pot's, their idealism has led to a serious underfunding of >essential >> services such as, in one very flagrant case, water testing, and in many >> perhaps less flagrant cases, public education. >> >>>> >> >> Sorry -- I don't buy that! Do you mean they are acting against the >> interests of the tax-payer? > >More likely against the interests of citizens and the common good and in >favour of the taxpayer. Tax cuts are high on the neo-liberal agenda. They >are alleged to attract business and stimulate people to spend, supposedly >moving the economy forward to generate income and government revenue. >However, that doesn't always happen, at least not in the short run, so >expenditures may have to be cut. That, combined with the believe that if >the government gets out of something, the private sector will move in and do >it better, led to a reduction in water testing practices and standards. One >community was hit especially hard. People died. > >The issue of education is more complex. In the public school system, >Ontario has moved from a thirteen year to a twelve year curriculum. The >government funds school boards, but not very generously, and has legislated >that they must balance their budgets even if it means cutting services that >people consider essential. Where, as in the case of Ottawa and Toronto (and >Hamilton, I believe), boards have refused to balance their budgets, the >government moves the board out of the way and appoints someone to do it for >them. > >What the government's motives are is unclear. Yes, moving kids through >school in twelve years instead of thirteen probably cuts costs and gets them >into the labour force faster, but many kids need that extra year before they >emerge into the wide world. And cutting special education programs that the >neo-lib mind regards as "fat" has hurt a lot of people and has, IMHO, >reduced the potential employability of kids who need special attention. > >Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
