Canadian 'Labour Socialism' or European 'Social Democracy'?

To Remind:

I have a question here. Let's suppose we were in the midst of an Ontario Provincial elction right now, and the Green candidate suggested that he'd support one unified secular school system, the Progressive Conservative candidate suggested suggested funding denominational private schools to compensate for the unfair subsidization of Catholic schools, the Liberal and NDP candidates suggested maintaining the status quo, and an independent candidate suggested a universal voucher system allowing FN and sign languages and religious schools to co-exist. Which woudl you support?

My guess is that on that particular front at least, you'd go for the Green candidate. The problem though is that others would also go for the PC candidate as an equally just alternative, and others might go Liberal or NDP for other reasons or to maintain the status quo. The independent candidate would be trying to get both the Green and PC votes in the hope of getting what both groups want. In a sence, it's like the prisoners' dilemma. Do we sacrifice the one to restrict the other, resulting in both failing owing to division; or do the left and right combine their efforst so that all groups can benefit?

remind wrote:

No one "grants" FN's their rights,  all that is needed is acknowleging that  it is truth and then support their efforts to gain them through whatever means they are choosing to get what is theirs.

There is no need to appease the religious right at all, especially not in the spurious name of "granting" FN's their rights faster.

Forced indoctrination into a invisible friend mythology should not be funded by the public purse.

So again, no funding to religious schools period. A voucher system is not needed.

Sorry for the wrong choice of words.

Now as for religious schools, sure, if we could acknowledge FN rights in the school system without having to cater to religious schools, I'd be all for it, but wouldn't hold FN language hostage to the religious right either. Like you said, they have that right and we should acknowledge it ASAP.

Now another issue has to do with producing curricula and course plans. To just legislate that schools are free to choose their second language and that they can choose the local Aboriginal language as the medium of instruction will not automatically result in schools having that option the next day. Sure the option would then exist in the law, but what about publishing the necessary textbooks, training the teachers in the language and culture, creating curricula and course plan for it, etc. I have my doubts that public schools would be interested in putting so much money and effort into this when they'd have the option of just carrying on with the old curricula (not to mention the likely resistance and resentment coming from former Catholic school teachers).

In the end, it would risk becoming a nice feel-good law on paper but not abal to translate into any meaningful reality for FN languages and sign languages, etc.

Of course the government could set up an agency responsible for creating the necessary curricula and course plans, but that woulc cots money, and the resentful Catholic vote, the religious right being denied religious funding, and even the secular fiscal right opposing more government funding, that would not be likely to fly. And even if it did, there woudl always be the risk that the new material is nothing more than FN translations of English materials, just English culture in a new code if you will, rather than new curricula that really reflect FN culture.

One solution I could see to this would be to introduce a voucher system in which public and private secular schools can participate (though FN-language-medium schools could be allowed to teach FN spirituality as part of their culture). This would allow private FN NGO's, investors or entrepreneurs to provide the funds to create the curricula and course plans to their liking. This would also provide the incentive for schools to implement the curriculum parents want. Granted, even this would not allow for a boom in the off-reserve FN language market, but would at least increase it somewhat, perhaps raising a few such schools where numbers warrant. Besides, who are we to stop FN participation in this process? Same with the deaf communities and sign languages, or other language communities for their second-language curricula.

Without the incentive that comes from a voucher system, or private sector investment, any such legislation is likely to shut the interested communities out of the process, and lead to a feel-good change in the law with no grass-roots effect.

remind wrote:

Nonsense, all the barriers you put up to publics schools providing the programs would be present in the  creating the "voucher" school system too plus more, as the schools would actually have to be created.

No one said a word about excluding FN's from the process.

It seems to me that you are more about providing the "religions" with money and are using FN's to do it.

Had you read my last post, you would have seen that, though I have my doubts of its political feasability, I'd be in favour of blocking religious schools from participating in such a system.

Now, as for prohibiting all private schools from participating, whether religious or secular, then that would mean that the provincial government itself woud have to provide the funding to the FN communities so that they could create curricula, and then it would give schools the freedom to choose which medium to teach in or which second-language to teach. The question is though, what kind of system would be implemented to give an incentive to schools to provide FN-language instruction where there is sufficient demand? If no such system is in place, why would a school switch from English of French to a local Aboriginal language when it would be much easier to just continue with English or French? Or why would it switch to a local Aboriginal language or sign language etc. from French when just continuing with French would create much less administrative hassle?

One solution I could see would be a secular public-school voucher (i.e. a voucher that can be used only by secular public schools). This would mean that there would in fact be an incentive for the school to respond to parental demands. So if a local community has many Aboriginal parents, let's say, they might get together to petition a school to, for example, replace French as a second language with the local Aboriginal language. If the school sees enough names there, it could decide to make the switch if it thinks it could make more money in the process. The problem though is that the teachers would oppose it because if they don't know the local Aboriginal language, their jobs are on the line. So there would be resistance there. But what could happen is that for the sake of the rest of the teachers' jobs, the French teacher gets laid off and replaced with a teacher of the local Aboriginal language to start, with hiring preference given to local-Aboriginal-language speaking teachers until the school could eventually switch to the local Aboriginal language. At that stage, that school would get more children than neighbouring schools and would thus make more money.

So possibly a secular -ublic-school voucher system might work in combination with government funding for the development of curricula and course plans for the new languages.

One possibility is that the right could object to funding for such development on the grounds that 'it's a waste of money', etc. But I suppose it could be worth a try. If the right opposes it, then the next question would be do we just shrug our shoulders and tell the FNs 'tough', or do we give the right a carrot for the sake of the FN? Personally, seeing how precarious the FN languages and cultures are right now, I'd go for the latter. But in the end, it's really a matter of how strongly we belive in equal recognition of FN languages and cultures and far far we'd be willing to go to secure it.

Thanks, though I was aware of that already. I was focussing on the Ontario system specifically. I know it's taught on reseves, and in some colleges. But in the compulsory public school system, they do not have an equal status with French. In that system, French is compulsory as a second language (or English if you're in the French system). Also, FN languages cannot be used as the language of instruction off-reserve in Ontario. Only English and French can, at least in the public school system.

What I was thinking of was going beyond just a few specialized schools, and instead give them an equal official status with Englsih and French across the system. I realise this would not mean that schools would suddenly be sprouting all over the place, but what it would mean is that legal or bureaucratic restrictions would be removed at least, thus possibly benefitting a few schools.

First Nations' languages should not be relegated to some specialized subject as they are now. They ought to have the right to be equal in status to French and English, at least officially, thoughout the school system. Sure it might be doable within a secular public school system without vouchers, but then the question is what incentive could be built into the system to ensure that when sufficient FNs live in a certain part of town off reserve, that they can have some influence in encouraging the school to teach their languages?

janfromthebruce wrote:

Having a bit of ed background politically, all need to remember that elementary and secondary education is provincial responsibility so this voucher idea is a no go. Now as for FN education  - FN either offer their own school system or the reserves contract with their local schools boards to provide education in their area. 

Of course it's a provincial responsibility, but what does that have to do with anything?

As for FN languages, what if we're dealing with a FN community far from any reserve, but numerically large enough to warrant teaching their language at least as a second-language in school? Why would we force them to learn French when they could learn thri own second-language if they wanted too, their choice of course?

Quote:

In Ontario, where there is reserves and where they contract with the school boards, those boards do provide their native language as their 2nd language option. Also, they provided various curriculum that is 1st nation centric. 

Again, why should we restrict their culture to reserves and surrounding areas only?

Quote:

Also this voucher idea is basically only relevant to urban centers as "choice" in rural is limited due to reduced population. Choice would be better focussed on "increased choice" in programming rather than focus on infrastructure. So in Ontario, we pay for 4 systems of education that all compete with one another, with half empty schools, and bussing kids that go by other schools. This is a huge waste fo resources - better spent in inhancing curriculum and programming needs of students - but that's politics.

Even if it were beneficial to urban areas only, it would still not hurt rural areas any, would it? And as mentioned above, if some kind of incentive system other than a voucher system could be worked out to create the same effect of encouraging schools to teach FN languages even if far away from any reserve, whenever numbers warrant, so as to avoid any stigma attached to the idea of vouchers, I'd be all for it.

Quote:

So the more school systems one builds - vouchers for all - the more duplication one is creating and all the administration to go with it. 

You could still have multiple systems without extra cost to the government. For example, a curriculum for Algonquin likely exists already at Kitigan Zibi. Under the system proposed, let's suppse that enough Algonquins in Ottawa, all living in the same geographical part of town, asked that their local school offered Algonquin as the language of instruction. That school could simply adopt Kitigan Zibi's curriculum,no more expensive than to adopt the English one since it would exist already anyway. Under a voucher system, of course schools would feel the pressure from parents requesting more Algonwuin content. Or if we want to avoid the stigma of thevoucher, the government could simply require any school receiving a petition from parents with so many signatures to teach that language. That could possibly be more combersome, as the governmnet would then have to guarantee teachers, etc. But from that standpoint, though it would be more expensive, it could likely lead to even more such schools than under a voucher system, granted, though I don't know how politically tenable it would be as some might complain of FNs getting more funding per person than other languages. But maybe some other system, similar to a voucher system, could achieve the same incentive.

[/quote] Of course we do not have the power we once had to impose our will but Britain's influence endures, out of all proportion to her economic and military resources. This is partly because the English language is the lingua franca of science, technology, and c

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.news.utoronto.ca/forums/can-indigenous-education-save-the-wor... Indigenous Education Save the World?[/url]

An Anishnable scholar and educator weighs in

 

Quote:

Perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of indigenous education is that we learn from our traditions that the Earth is alive; it is a spiritual being and must be respected as such. Our education and teachings therefore come not only from our parents, relatives, grandmothers and grandfathers, elders, teachers, communities and nations but also from Creation itself (including animals, plants, the moon, the stars, water, wind and the spirit world). We learn through visions, ceremonies, prayers, songs, dances and performances, intuitions, dreams and personal experiences.

 

The relationship with Creation and its beings was meant to be maintained and enhanced and the knowledge required for this to occur was passed on for generations over thousands of years. The responsibilities that one assumed as part of our education were necessary to ensure the continuation of Creation: again, what academics, scientists and environmentalists might today call sustainability.

 

Imagine that, singing, dancing, and prayer. Colonial administrators and efficiency experts apparently fell down on the job somewhere along the line to have allowed this to happen.

Now this creates a few problems. How do we allow FN languages and culture in public school while suppressing FN spirituality? Personally, I'd be all for letting them be. But seeing that 'we' know better than they do what's good for them, perhaps it would be better to just keep such education on-reserve and in the colleges and universities, so that we can keep all this spirituality stuff under wraps in the public school system. If they teach in their languages, our inspectors can't be sure what they're teaching anymore. Might be better keeping it all in English and French so that we can keep a closer tab on what's being taught in our public schools, so we can make sure they're learning good old fashioned European materialism.

Or even a voucher system but only among public schools only, with Aboriginal languages, ASL and LSQ being equal to French and English as second-languages. Or without the voucher, but similar to the Italian or Alberta system, with each school simply free to choose ASL< LSQ, or the local Aboriginal language, with French no longer being compulsory.

Didn't you read the rest of my post? You seem to have selective reading.

Ken Burch wrote:

Machjo may be the only person in the world who thinks that the NDP is to the left of the European social democratic parties.

It would seem that socialists in some European countries are more open to a two-tier system and vouchers than the NDP.

Ken Burch wrote:

Machjo wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Machjo may be the only person in the world who thinks that the NDP is to the left of the European social democratic parties.

It would seem that socialists in some European countries are more open to a two-tier system and vouchers than the NDP.

Given that the European social democrats who take positions like that just got their asses hand to them in the Euro-elections and(in West Germany, for example)are doomed to defeat in their countries' next parliamentary elections, why would you think it would make even any practical sense for the NDP to adapt such positions?  It would clearly be the end of any real distinction between the NDP and the Liberals.  Nobody in Canada wants the NDP to just be ANOTHER middle-of-the-road party that puts the rich first.

Well, if the people voted right in spite of this, then imagine how many fewer votes they'd have gotten otherwise. By the way, neither the left nor the right is raising much of a fuss over the voucher system in Sweden, so it would seem it's there to stay.

As for rich and poor, a voucher ssytem has nothing to do with that. Just as it would be possible to increase taxes and increase the value of the voucher, it would be equally possible to fund public schools only but reduce taxes and reduce funding. The amount of funding and the administration of the funds are two distinct things.

I guess we could look at it this way: I'd rather pass laws that help all workers, not just labour unions.

Doug wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Machjo may be the only person in the world who thinks that the NDP is to the left of the European social democratic parties.

Depends on which party. Left of the French Socialist Party? Probably not. Left of the German Social Democrats? Most likely. Left of British Labour? Definitely.

Some of that isn't really a left/right thing, though - it's a being marginal or not thing. That is, if your party is likely to be in government at some point you'll need to be more pragmatic and open to compromise.

I agree with what you said about the right-left thing. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Sweden provides more public funding per student under its voucher system than we do in our public school system. I could be wrong of course, but just pointing out that the whole left-right thing can become quite gray once a third way is sought out. For example, which would be considered more leftist between a poorly funded public school system and a well-funded voucher system in which private schools could participate? Gets blurry then, doesn't it.

Why's the Fraser Institute stealing ideas from left-leaning countries? Sweden has had this since 1992.

remind wrote:

So they can perhaps twist it into what it isn't? just like you are?

How so?

As for the school voucher system in Sweden, it's been in place since 1991. I typed 1992 above, but that was just my bad memory. It was 1991, so it's well over a decade now.

As for two-tiered health care, I know less detail on that. I'm not sure if Sweden has that, but I know some other mainland countries do. But sicne when I'm not sure. Anyway, I just found this that might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care
As for how happy people are with the 2t healthcare, I'm not sure, but it woudl seem logical that if the rich chose not to take advantage of public healthcare, it would naturally free up resources to help the rest and thus benefit the poor too.
As for the school voucher system in Sweden, no party has put up any serious opposition to it since its implementation.

I just found another interesting pasage here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#Choice_as_an_International_Human_Right

I admit that I wasn't aware until now that there wre actually UN resolutions in favour of this, but here it is.

Ken Burch wrote:

Also, why are you setting up this polarity in which greater instruction in FN languages ends up on the opposite side of the political spectrum FROM the labour movement?  It's not like unions have ever been particularly hostile to FN people and the teaching of FN languages, or at least not more so than corporations.  You're not going to get away with painting the FN issue as a "enlightened business types are good on this, unions are bad" kind of thing.  BTW, there really aren't progressive, enlightened business types anymore.  They all pretty much gave up their enlightened views when Bush and Harper took power.

There are a lot more FN people that are or would be trade union members than there ever are the sort that would be in corporate boardrooms.  FN people tend(though this isn't absolute)to have a much more collective than individualist(and thus more humane)value system than English Canadians(and certainly than my fellow Yanks.)

 

1. How was I trying to paint labour unions as anti-FN? I was just saying that some kind of incentive must be built into the system to motivate schools to teach their languages where numbers and interest, etc. warrant.

2. What does the US have to do with this?

3. I've met a businesswoman who was a member of the NDP, and have also met common wager earners who wouldn't want to unionize simply because they find it too confrontational and they'd rather maintain more friendly relations with management rather than a confrontational attitude. My proposal to just legislate a vote for workers on the board of directors would in fact achieve this more effectively than granting unions the right to strike and apply other pressure tactics, don't you think? Besides, such a policy would seem more collaborative and collectivist than labour strikes which are more divisive and confrontational, don't you think? Who wants to work in a tense confrontational environment all day with workers and managers always standing at odds, always with their guard up for the next confrontation, the next strike or lockout? Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to work together in peace?