skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The trustees of the Toronto District School Board has narrowly voted in favour of having black-focused schools in the city. As I am most definitely no expert in the field of education and am not a person of African-Canadian descent, I will not downplay nor can I fully understand the needs and the struggles faced by these students. But I personally am not 100% sure that having black-focused and black-only schools is the optimal solution; and nor am I 100% sure that it isn't. But what I do know is that there are a lot of unanswered questions and will most definitely open a HUGE can of worms in the debate of publicly funded education.
I have written a post about this issue back in November and a commenter provided a very compelling argument in favour of such schools:
The students who go to these school have almost always dropped out of regular schools due to persecution or have been expelled due to opposition to authority. They are in essence "special needs students" based in part on their racial background or sexual orientation. It is really no different than having "gifted schools" which also exist in many school boards for students who are also special needs and can have behavioural problems or drop out as well if left unchallenged or misunderstood.
These schools and their premise are totally different than "segregation" or religious funding. These students are having trouble functioning in the regular system where their needs are not met. Religious schools are not for students who couldn't otherwise function.
-Anonymous commenter (2007-11-06)
I agree with the commenter that the students' needs are not met by the regular system; but is separating them by race attacking the root cause of the problem? Or are there other non-race related issues at the root of the struggle. Moreover, I am sure there are other students from all other ethnicities and races facing similar struggles and needs. Do they not also deserve the special attention as well? Would a better solution be strengthening and empowering the existing Special Ed programs already in place in our public schools?
Of all cities in North America, I would assume that Toronto is one where race and ethnicity causes the least conflict in all aspects of life. Growing up in Toronto, I experienced first hand and the multicultural classrooms and workplaces and am very thankful for it. A lot of Torontonians take the diversity for granted because it comes so naturally to us that we don't even think twice about it. There are very few places in the world, where you have students from different backgrounds from all over the world learn in the same classroom from the same curriculum, and are taught the same values. But with this recent vote, a big big can of worms has definitely been opened. As much as some people may not like to see this word used for this context, the students will literally be "segregated". Race and ethnicity have now entered into the realm of debate in what has been our race-neutral public education system. Like Ontario education minister Kathleen Wynne said before the vote it may also "spur other cultural and religious groups to lobby for their own separate schools within a public system".
The Toronto District School Board calls this a "pilot project". If this little experiment doesn't end up being effective, it will be extremely hard to backtrack and may end up causing more damage and generate even harsher repercussions. These already troubled students absolutely cannot be used as guinea pigs. If the schools do become a reality, the school board and the province absolutely CANNOT allow them fail. A LOT of time, planning, and feedback will be required to make them the best they can be.
Furthermore, upcoming talks, debates and discussions will have to be made carefully as race/ethnicity (including religion) is an extremely sensitive subject. Torontonians are not use to facing the issue in the context of segregation and are typically very politically correct when the topic of race does come up. If words are not chosen carefully, the fire will definitely spread, maybe even uncontrollably. Ontario PC leader John Tory most definitely got burned by such a fire during the recent provincial election campaign.
It will be interesting to see what step the provincial government and school board takes next.
So Ipsos-Reid for Canwest Global recently released a poll showing the Liberals slightly leading the Conservatives. You know... that's no surprise considering it's been teeter-tottering both ways for the past two years.
But the interesting point is where this gain is registering for the Liberals? Nope, not in Ontario, not in Quebec, nor is it in Atlantic Canada... but in the grit-wasteland of Alberta of all places. The Liberals have INCREASED a whopping 20 points and the Conservatives have dropped 23. Are pigs actually starting to fly? Is money actually starting to grow on trees? Are Albertans sniffing too much oil?
The article claims that the drop for the CPC is due to the mediocre performance of Alberta premier Ed Stelmach and the inability for Canadians to separate a provincial party from a federal party with the same name. These reasons sound legitimate, but 20-23 percentage points?! I think that's a lot for something not directly related to the Harper government.
Even though I don't think these numbers are sustainable, it's just interesting to mention due to it's rarity.
The Conservatives, two years later, are still standing at approximately the same level of support. With a weak opposition and with everything that they've managed to get passed in the House, one would expect Canadians to have embraced the Cons by now. And why haven't they?
In my opinion, it's because our Right Honourable Prime Minister is seen as extremely non-charismatic, without character, and extremely stiff. When he smiles, it looks ingenuine and fake. This gives off the impression that every move he makes is more for personal political gain rather than for the good of the country (well actually thats a fact, not an impression...). It's been almost 5 years since Stephen Harper has re-entered federal politics and two years into his prime ministership and still he hasn't been able to shake off his "boogey man" image. He tells Canadians that there is no "hidden agenda"... but do we believe him? According to the polls, I would have to say no. If it were any other prospective leader, like Belinda Stronach, Bernard Lord, or Jim Prentice (who all have more character than Harper), I think the CPC would be in majority territory right now. Don't get me wrong, I think our PM is definitely one of the most stratgeic "politicians" around. Like the recent GST radio ads. They're a complete waste of money and totally ridiculous, but I'm sure some Canadians will buy into them. He also doesn't hold back on attacks against the opposition. This is evident when one logs on to Conservative.ca, It's amazing to see that there are more pictures of Dion on the main page, then there is of the PM himself. But being politically slick and constantly attacking and undermining the other guy doesn't necessarily mean that it will translate into votes. In this case, I think it has made Harper look more slimey, slick and untrustworthy. Pierre Trudeau was like the anti-Harper. There were people who absolutely hated him... but there were definitely people who absolutely adored and loved him. Trudeau definitely had the charisma and character to garner trust from those undecided Canadians who just weren't sure how to vote. This trait that Trudeau had is what Harper lacks and it is what is holding him back. I don't see a Harpermania happening anytime soon.What I am trying to say here is that if a leader is charismatic enough, they have a better chance at selling their agenda, no matter how controversial it maybe, and still will be able to garner trust from Canadians across the country. If Harper and the CPC want a majority... they definitely need to hire a better image consultant for the PM.
I would like to begin by wishing every a happy new year and a successful, balanced and happy 2008. I was watching last weeks CBC's End-of-Year At Issue Panel (hosted by Peter Mansbridge) and they talked about 2007's most overrated and underrated politicians. They made some good points but I would like to add some names to the list. MOST OVERRATED John Baird
I agree with the panelists on this one. This man is loud, and only knows how to make angry-gorilla-like faces without any substance. This lack of substance proved to be true as he turned out to be a HUGE embarrassment for all Canadians at the Bali conference. The "standing ovation" that he received shouldn't be priased, but should be recognized as a shame. Baird vs. Ambrose?? Not much difference there in my opinion. Maybe Rona Ambrose was dumped cause she wasn't gorilla enough.
Lawrence Cannon (Transport Minister and Harper's Quebec Lieutenant)This man was highly touted in 2006 and was almost invisible in 2007. Does Cannon actually have THAT much influence over Quebecers? I would think Foreign Affairs minister Maxime Bernier would be a more appropriate choice as Quebec Lt. instead
John Tory
Tory was seen as the saviour/golden boy for the Ontario PC party after Dalton trampled Ernie in 2003. He ended up only being an embarrassment of riches. He is the equivalent to the 2003 overrated Paul Martin. He ran on the platform on leadership but very clearly showed none during the election campaign. The first of his dumbest mistakes in political history was by bringing up an issue that obviously wouldn't fly with the liberal thinking/immigrant-oriented province. He made his second most dumbest mistake by running in a riding against a high profile, hardworking cabinet minister in a Toronto urban riding. I think the City of Toronto needs this man more than Queen's Park does. MOST UNDERRATEDPeter Van Loan
Even though I do not like Van Loan, partisanship aside, he did do a good job as a "politician". It's not easy to be the House Leader of the governing party in a minority parliament. He hasn't gotten a lot of recognition from the conservative leadership for his performance. He has done a better job as House Leader than the lying Rob Nicholson.
Stephane Dion
This was obviously a bad year for Dion.. but the first year for a leader of the opposition is always bad. Mind you three years ago nobody would have thought Harper would ever become PM. But you know what they say, when people have low expectations of you, its easy to out perform. He has been getting a lot of flack from fellow liberals, including myself, but I have a feeling he will pleasently surprise us in 2008.Dalton McGuinty
I also agree with the panelists on this one. He was so underrated that everyone was predicting him to at-best get a minority government or even be a "one-term wonder" by some. He blew everyone away by winning a 2nd landslide majority government. By having a secured 2nd term in office, he has shown his courage by fighting for Ontario's representation in the House of Commons and has started work immediately (i.e. Ipperwash). "A small man of conderation" he is not.
