Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘education’

It’s lunacy on parade all over again, as Quebec student agitators take to the streets to protest the cardinal Quebec government sin of replacing bursaries with loans (i.e. making people actually pay back their handouts… gasp!). And in the usual fashion, the protestors are acting with reckless disregard for personal safety, property, or even the interests of the students they’re supposedly defending, as they wreak havoc all over town:

A five-hour blockade at the Port of Montreal ended yesterday in a standoff with riot police and the arrest of six students protesting against cuts to financial aid.

The typical accusations of “police provocation” on the part of the student shit-disturbers followed, of course.

It goes beyond mere rock throwing and idiocy, though. Votes to strike at several university campuses are threatening the semesters of students who actually want to attend class. Most of my friends are absolutely livid that their semesters may be delayed or even cancelled. To quote one friend at UQAM:

Now the students are saying they don’t give a d*mn if our term is cancelled. I am really pissed at them, and considering suing my student association. If it is cancelled, I want my $1000 back. It is not by throwing that much money out the window that we are “helping future generations”… And then these idiots throw rocks at policemen and block streets.

But the union leaders and protest agitators don’t actually give a crap about the students they’re supposed to represent. None of them care about losing out on class time, since few if any actually ever set foot in a classroom. None of them care about graduating since they don’t actually intend to ever graduate. None of them care about the effect of a delayed semester on summer or other job prospects, because none of them actually ever intend to get a job. Never mind that Quebec university tuition is so cheap, they could pay it off easily if they actually got a job instead of spending their days throwing rocks at police. Where’s the fun in that?

It’s all well and good to try to protect students against spiraling or unreasonable tuition hikes. But things have gotten way out of control. The tuition freeze is crippling Quebec education, but no government can lift it without paying a severe political price. This has disastrous long-term effects on the health of Quebec’s economy and society in general. Accessible education is one thing; accessible quality education is another altogether. If the student agitators get their way, Quebec will have free education that’s completely, utterly useless, creating an entire generation of people who intend on living off the backs of the state.

Unfortunately, the students who understand this basic fact are disorganized and lack a powerful political voice. So as the strikes and protests continue, who is going to stand up for the rights of students who actually want an education?

The FEUQ is spending $66,000 of student money to run a television ad campaign slamming the Charest government for its decision to convert $103 million of bursaries into loans:

The FEUQ is demanding that the Charest government rescind its decision to transform $103 million worth of student bursaries into loans.

Federation spokespeople maintain that this move is not an effort to rebuild an image some might say was tarnished by the violent incidents that occured at their Monticello demonstration last week, but rather to make the public aware of the issues at stake.

Just to clarify: they’re mad because students will actually have to repay the money they get from the government. Cause that would mean students would actually have to get jobs when they graduate… you know, the kind that pay money.

It’s so much better to live off of handouts that nobody expects you to ever repay, isn’t it? Then you can stay in school forever, taking one class at a time that you never attend, and spend your time organizing protests and drinking fair-trade coffee.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the student protests and strikes are jokes. Quebec students pay a pittance in tuition compared to anywhere else in North America. But the way the student unions work, the people elected to leadership are the ones who promise more strikes, more fights, more protests.

The tuition freeze in Quebec is sort of like ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Everyone knows that they’re damaging, but it is suicidal for any government to even suggest revoking them. And so we have a university system that is cash-strapped and an endless cycle of students coming to believe that it’s more honourable to live off of handouts than to actually work for anything.

*Sigh*.

The Liberal government’s hastily-retracted plan to increase subsidies to Jewish schools has sparked somewhat of a debate on private schools in the blogosphere. Paul lists his reasons for opposing government funding of private schools.

I disagree. And I’d like to explain why, by addressing his arguments:

A/ This isn’t the US, private schooling is not something that should involve getting a second mortgage. If you are absolutely hell-bent on sending your offspring to private school yet can’t afford it right off the bat, make a few sacrifices if you value your child’s education that much.

Private Jewish school tuition, last I checked, runs in the neighbourhood of $6,000 a year or thereabouts. Per child. That may not force most families to get a second mortgage, but it’s not pocket change either. And when you factor in the fact that many families are paying this for two, three, four kids at a time, you can see how it quickly spirals out of reach for parents quickly.

B/ Wouldn’t a reduction in our overall level of taxation provide people with more than enough spare money to do this, rather than providing selective credits, vouchers, etc. from which only taxpayers with children could profit? (To coin a phrase, wouldn’t that be democracy in taxation?) Moreover, how many new civil servants would have to be hired to administer the granting of vouchers, or other things along those lines?

Of course it would, and that argument can be made about pretty much any government subsidy program. In general I believe in less government spending and greater tax cuts.

But education is something that is government-funded, at least in the public sector. Everyone pays school tax, whether they send their children to public schools or not. So parents who opt for private schools are in essence double-taxed, as they pay both for the private school and for a spot in a public school that their kids aren’t using.

C/ If parents want to send their children to fully-subsidised schools that won’t cost them much of anything, they already have that option in the form of public schools. Sure, they may not be all that they’re cracked up to be, so maybe some sort of public education reform might be in order (and one may argue that the creation of a public school curriculum that actually teaches something and is available to all might be a more equitable and responsible use of our money).

I think there’s some confusion about the Reid plan here. The intention was never to fully subsidize private schools (i.e. no tuition), it was to fully subsidize the secular portion of the private schools’ education. The religious portion – which is not available or offered in the public system – is subsidized at 0% and would continue to be. So essentially, parents would be paying only for the part of the program that isn’t available in the public system.

Quebec used to have religious schoolboards – Catholic or Protestant. If you were neither, you could either send your kids to one or the other (usually Protestant), or you could fork over the dough for private school. Now, we have linguistic schoolboards, which is a step in the right direction, but the public schools still offer Catholic or Protestant religious education courses. The Jewish option doesn’t exist in the public sector, so the private schools fill a void. And parents who select them usually aren’t doing so because they’re snobby or find the schools posh (a laughable thought, considering the state of disrepair of my high school), but because they want their kids to learn something about their background and culture that they can’t get in the public system. Ditto with the Greek schools, which are fully government-subsidized in their secular programs – students can’t learn Greek language or culture in the public system, so these schools fill that void.

So sure, parents have a choice of where to send their kids to learn the 3 Rs. But they don’t have a choice if they want their kids to have some cultural or moral education as well.

D/ If private education becomes financed entirely (or mostly) by the Government and available to all, who’s going to be left to go to public schools? Considering that private schools are located mainly in large urban areas and their surroundings, I don’t see how inhabitants of rural areas are supposed to benefit from your position on democracy in education.

There would still be plenty of people left in the public system, out of choice or convenience. If the Quebec government increased secular funding to the Jewish schools to 100%, thousands of Catholic kids wouldn’t suddenly enroll. In fact, it’s doubtful if the schools’ admission would go up at all, considering that parents who can’t afford the tuition currently receive financial aid. Anyone who wants to send their kids to Jewish school is probably already doing so.

But the broader issue is the underlying claim that if private schools are more accessible, they’ll steal students from the public system. But by creating a sort of “protectionism” for the public schools, it gives them a disincentive to improve or to hold themselves to higher standards. Give parents a choice and schools will have to shape up to compete. Many already have. It’s doable.

E/ Government funding of private schools only makes some sort of sense if public schools are privatised and forced to live up to the same standards as other private schools. I can’t quite see that happening, though. No matter what, it sort of negates the point of private schools, i.e., that they’re not public.

There’s no need to privatise public schools. There is a need to fund public schools better. And the one argument against the Reid plan that I think is valid is that of opportunity cost: the money going to the Jewish schools is needed more by the public schools. There’s something to be said for that. But that’s a problem of chronic underfunding, not one of an ideological impasse. In theory, the public school system should be able to meet the needs of most people to the greatest degree possible, with the private system filling in the holes where needed.

For the record, I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the Jewish school system. Grade school was fine, but by high school it was a bit much. But I do think that parents ought to have the option, which is why I was in favour of the Liberal plan.

Those asking me for clarifications ought to be satisfied now… hopefully.

Jean Charest caved under pressure and retreated from his plan to increase subsidies to Jewish schools:

After discussing the matter with his cabinet for the first time, Charest acknowledged that the plan was doomed to fail without the backing of the population.

[ . . . ]

“With the Marguerite Bourgeoys school board not wanting to pursue this and with the very strong reaction within the population of Quebec, this initiative is not one that’s going to be able to succeed,” Charest said.

If all 15 schools had signed on, the program would have cost $10 million a year. The seven schools that signed agreements will still get a portion of that total for the remainder of the school year before the program is abolished. Charest has authorized Reid and Citizens Relations and Immigration Minister Michelle Courchesne to work with the school boards and cultural communities to find an alternative.

Worse than a leader people disagree with is a spineless leader. Charest will likely find that retreat with his tail between his legs is much more politically costly than an unpopular plan in the first place.

Ironically, there’s no public outcry against the Greek schools who receive this funding model. Greeks, I suppose, are less politically objectionable than Jews.

At least one prominent person has the courage to tell it like it is:

Marcus Tabachnick, chairperson of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, said the project should have continued.

Stressing that it was his personal opinion and not necessarily that of the board, Tabachnick said the controversy hinted of anti-Semitism.

He said he’s been asked by at least one reporter for the origin of his last name and his religion.

“I’m disappointed,” Tabachnick said. “I think in the last few days we’ve seen the ugliest side of Quebec.”

Unfortunately, his is one of the only voices making that argument. A Leger poll suggested that 90% of the population of Quebec was against the initiative.

At times like this, I’m reminded of something I’ve said before: If an opinion poll was held in Quebec, asking people if the Jews should pay more tax than everyone else, the initiative would overwhelmingly be favoured.

I guess this proves that point.

Update: Judging by Tommy Schnurmacher’s tirade on the subject, he agrees with me… and then some. Not that I’m too surprised.

Charest is angrily denying allegations that his government’s decision to increase funding to Jewish day schools was motivated by fundraising for the Liberals by the Jewish community:

Far from a last-minute decision made behind closed doors, Charest said, allowing Jewish day schools to form an association with public school boards and boost their secular funding is an idea that has been in the works for more than 10 years.

The premier angrily denied reports the decision was related to financial contributions to the Quebec Liberal Party by members of the Jewish community.

“There is absolutely no link between political financing and the decision taken by the government,” Charest said at a late- afternoon news conference. “If some people want to piece together events to say there is an appearance, they can always try to do that, but I am here to say clearly that’s not the case.”

Sounds liek a standard-issue denial. But there’s much more than simple political criticizing going on here.

First of all, the decision had initially been approved by two public schoolboards, who signed on:

And Reid was acting with the approval of the two school boards involved, the Lester B. Pearson School Board and the Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys, which voted in favour of the deals at their own meetings and passed the requests up the line, Charest said.

Both schoolboards would also get additional funding for participating. But little attention is being paid to that.

Also, there’s a clear double-standard at play, since Greek schools in Montreal are already 100% funded:

Charest said that despite criticism the government is creating a precedent, the Greek community already has associations with school boards that entitle its schools to more funding. The Liberals had decided to give private Jewish schools associated status as early as 1994 but lost power to the PQ, which did not implement it.

[ . . . ]

[Former PQ education minister Pauline] Marois added that in the nine years the PQ was in power, the government refused just such a request from Jewish leaders for reasons of fairness and because the government wanted to get away from the religious aspects of education as part of the transformation from religious school boards to linguistic ones.

“My biggest fear is that this has the reverse effect sought by the Jewish community and by the minister, that it raises the objections we see today and it leads to intolerance between one group and another,” Marois said.

“The minister is creating a climate of tension, insecurity, and is not acting in the interests of all.”

Marois admitted, however, that despite her criticism of the deal with Jewish private schools, the PQ did nothing to reverse the same associated status the Greek schools enjoyed when the PQ was in power.

So funding Greek schools does not create a “climate of tension”, but funding Jewish schools does. That’s crystal clear, I suppose.

Marois even went so far as to suggest that the Jewish schools should refuse to sign on for the plan, ostensibly to avoid being criticized by the likes of her party.

Anyone notice a pattern here? When people “suspect” the Jews, it’s beacuse we brought it on ourselves by doing things that “create a climate of tension”. Marois’ comments were a bit more subtle than Parizeau’s infamous “money and the ethnic vote” speech… but not much.

I knew when I heard about this that it was bound to blow up in someone’s face. And of course, it has: Jean Charest’s plan to boost subsidies to private Jewish day schools – like the ones I attended – has become the latest political controversy seemingly overnight.

The plan is simple, on the face of it. Jewish schools, previously getting 60% of their funding from the government, will now get 100%. In exchange, they sign a deal promising “cultural exchanges” with public schools, in order to foster better community relations and understanding.

But Charest’s government would never escape scrutiny for this move. Any sympathy for the Jewish community’s added financial burden of providing security for schools in the wake of the UTT firebombing has long faded. Reverting to type, the Quebec public sees a potential scandal involving Liberals, Jews, and money… and smells blood.

This from the Gazette’s Don Macpherson:

But, as everyone but apparently the government could have predicted, the increase is likely to worsen relations between Jews and non-Jews.

Other than the government, Jews and other religious groups using it as a precedent, nobody supports the decision. As the chief editorialist for the usually Liberal-friendly La Presse, Andre Pratte wrote yesterday the government managed to fan not one controversy but three: public funding of private schools, public funding of ethnic schools and the place of religion in publicly funded schools. And it awoke “the old demon” of anti-Semitism. The title of the editorial was an incredulous single word:”Incomprehensible!”

In other words, it’s bad policy because it gives fodder to the antisemites.

Now, Charest’s government is being attacked by the PQ for supposedly granting this extra money as a payout for the Jewish community’s support of his party:

Quebec Opposition leader Bernard Landry demanded Tuesday that Premier Jean Charest reconsider his decision to increase the funding of private Jewish schools from 60 to 100 per cent, which is the same as public schools.

Landry and Parti Québécois education critic, Pauline Marois, also called for Education Minister Pierre Reid to step down from cabinet because of his poor management of the education portfolio.

Landry said that Charest must make public his reasoning behind the decision in order to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest linking major contributions from the Jewish community to the Quebec Liberal Party.

Bernard Landry went on camera and called for Pierre Ried’s resignation. Never mind that there’s zero foundation. Never mind that the PQ has a long history of taking care of its friends (metro to Laval, anyone?) or that the Jewish community has its own reasons for supporting the Liberals and doesn’t require a cash incentive. Never mind that there are no ways to prove the allegations.

The Societe St Jean Baptiste is calling for an inquiry into the matter because it may have been “politically motivated”. Anyone who knows the SSJB knows how ridiculous that is.

Personally, I think an increase in public education funding should have been a higher priority. But I also know from experience that most of the Jewish day schools are desperately cash-strapped. Far from the stereotypical “posh” private schools, most of the buildings are falling apart, the facilities are in urgent need of replacement, and the textbooks are so old that my grade 10 history book had only 9 provinces listed in Canada. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating… but not by much.

Many families who send their kids to Jewish school can’t afford the tuition, and the schools work out financial aid for any family who needs it. Given all that, I can’t imagine any of the Jewish schools turning up their nose at more money.

The problem isn’t the added cash. It’s the fact that the government can pour money into union coffers, other ethnic communities, rural communties and just about anyone else’s pockets without people batting an eyelash. After all, we’re the most heavily-taxed province in Canada and there’s no shortage of people getting handouts. But the minute a dime goes to the Jewish community, it’s an “appearance of conflict”.

Ontario may make it illegal to drop out of high school:

The Ontario government plans to introduce legislation that will require students to stay in school until they reach the age of 18, said the province’s minister of education Saturday.

If the rules aren’t followed, students would be forced back to their desks or sent to alternative learning programs by a court order, said Education Minister Gerard Kennedy. If that fails, a student could be ordered to spend time in jail, but that would be rare he adds.

The McGuinty government is spinning this as a “carrot, not stick” and an “exciting opportunity that strikes them as a real win for themselves”. Somehow I doubt most high school dropouts will see it that way.

Students need to want to stay in school because they believe in their future opportunities, not because it’s illegal not to. The Ontario government is taking an education system that clearly has problems, and trying to mask them with a new law that will do very little other than cause bureaucratic headaches.

In the meantime, Quebec – with our extraordinarily high high school dropout rate – is probably watching carefully. But with calls every so often to scrap the Cegep system, it’s hard to take the government’s commitment to postsecondary education seriously. Cegep, which is free and is open to “mature students” over 21 who never finished high school, provides a great second chance for dropouts to get back into the education system. It’s probably the best innovation that has ever come from a government. Scrapping it won’t solve our dropout problem, it will make the whole system worse.

The only way to reduce dropout rates is to provide students with clear incentives to stay in school. Both Quebec and Ontario are failing miserably on that score.

A school district in Wisconsin will teach creationism in classes, claiming that it’s just as valid a theory as evolution:

Members of Grantsburg’s school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum “should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory,” said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

One of the key problems with many religions is their inability to accept natural facts and explain them. The Catholic Church maintained the Earth was flat long after it was proved that it was round, and that the sun revolved around the Earth long after the opposite was proved to be true. Millions of people today equate science and faith, believing them to be simply “alternate theories” of the same event.

This discounts the whole basis of science: proof, verifiable data, and a willingness to change theories in the face of new evidence. None of these are present in faith, which is a personal matter that has no place in public schools.

I think part of the problem in the evolution versus creationism debate is the word “theory” in scientific circles. A scientific “theory” is not just a guess. Science uses the term “theory” on the assumption that there is no such thing as fact, because new evidence could always emerge. But a theory is as rock-solid as it gets in science; it’s a conclusion drawn after experiments and supporting research. This leads many religious people to falsely assume that a scientific theory has equal validity to a faith-based one.

Personally, I don’t believe that these Wisconsin students will never understand that. I was educated in a religious school where creationism was taught over evolution, and I got over it. That doesn’t mean it’s right to mislead and falsely educate students just because of politics. Especially in public schools. It’s one thing for students to be taught that many people believe in creationism. It’s quite another for them to be taught that it’s as valid a theory as evolution. The politicos who made this decision should be ashamed of themselves.

Public hearings are being held on the subject of potentially scrapping the CEGEP system in Quebec, and replacing it with an extra year of high school.

Me to them: Hands off!

CEGEP is the best two years of many students’ entire academic careers. I’m far from the only person to say this.

For pre-university students, it’s a chance to adapt to a collegial environment before the pressure begins of choosing a major and a career path. For students in technical programs, it’s a chance to get a free education that will lead to a solid career path. For everyone, it’s a great social and academic environment, free of the trappings of the typical high school.

If a student switches programs in CEGEP, it costs them maybe an extra semester and a few textbooks. Switching programs in university can mean up to a year or more of extra tuition costs. CEGEP provides an opportunity to try out a few different things, during the truly formative years of one’s life, and find the path that suits them best before investing in a university degree in the subject.

CEGEP is one of the few things that Quebec actually got right. Work on funding education better, not messing up the system.

In a scathing opinion piece in today’s Gazette, McGill profs Reuven Brenner and Gil Troy tear apart academia:

We don’t have today a “free marketplace of ideas” – not by any stretch of the imagination. What we have is a heavily subsidized production of “obscure jargons” – much noise, that is – with academics carving out, then jealously guarding, their turf.

Pompous wording, circuitous sentences and flaccid prose protect prerogatives and bamboozle students with buzz-words, elaborate models and unverifiable theories, leaving a trail of confusion that mediocre followers – in academia, media and politics, too – either mistake for profundity or just misuse when convenient.

I think that’s a little harsh. There are some very good professors out there, and I took more than my share of excellent, thought-provoking classes.

But Brenner and Troy aren’t attacking individual professors so much as the entire system of academia. And here, they aren’t too far off the mark. While their analysis is more bleak than anything, there is no denying that academia can be full of narrow-minded people who are oftentimes out of touch with reality. The overuse of jargon should be obvious to any first-year arts student. Too many professors have voiced concerns about the sacred cow of “publish or perish” being replaced by “toe the line or you’re out”. If your opinions are unfashionable, you’ll have precious little success finding a position anywhere.

I’d like to say things are getting better, but it seems that they are getting worse. Too many classes, instead of teaching students to become independent thinkers, instead require regurgitation of the professor’s ideas. It’s obvious this can lead nowhere positive, and maybe some soul-searching in academics is long overdue.