Progressive ideology in education

Vincent J. Curtis

22 April 2014

Over the last week, the newspaper of my hometown has run a series of articles on so-called EQAO testing.  (Education Quality Accountability Office.)  It is a set of standardized tests run across the province to evaluated the educational attainments of students.  The newspaper report focused on the differences in performance generally between inner city schools, and those of the affluent suburbs.  In general, the tone of the articles was non-ideological.  However,, those individuals quoted in the articles did have an ideological bias, namely the unwarranted belief that educational outcomes ought to be the same.  Since they are not the same, something is wrong and they are ready to apply their nostrums to fix the alleged problem.

Below is a missive on the subject.

 

There is no question that each child is a special, unique, and different individual, with their own set of gifts.

 

When these unique individuals are put through the same education system, it should not be surprising that the outcome from each individual will be different.  Call these differences gaps, if you will.

 

To say that these gaps should not exist is to substitute an ideological position for a logical deduction.

 

It may seem progressive to insist that the educational outcomes of different individuals should be measurably identical, but think about what that ideological position means.

 

In order to obtain identical educational outcomes from different individuals it would require that the education each individual received be specifically tailored to enable that individual to achieve the standard, and no more.  It will also require that education be denied high achieving individuals so that they do not exceed the standard, lest that detested gap reappear.  I doubt that the educational authorities possess the knowledge necessary to put together such a program, nor would the morality of it be accepted once it became evident.  Thus we have the naked claim that different individuals ought to perform the same on the basis of nothing but ideological predilections.

 

Instead of trying to teach each child to become a good economic unit, children should be taught to be good citizens.

 

In the end, society, Ontario, and Canada will belong to the generation said presently to be suffering from educational gaps.  So long as they pay our pensions, that problem will be theirs to solve as adults, as we did.

-30-

 

 

 

 

 

There is Stupid, and then there is Fanatic

Vincent J. Curtis

10 April 2014

 

Over the last several months, a circle of writers who are or were employed by the public school system of my hometown have been writing letters to the editor of the local paper calling for the abolishment of the Separate School system.  The Separate School system is the Catholic run school system that has operated in Ontario since the 1840s, i.e. before there even was an Ontario.  The right of Catholics in Ontario to have their school system funded by the provincial government was guaranteed in Section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867, and was most recently ratified in the Constitution Act of 1982.  All this right amounts to is the taxes paid by Catholics for schools in Ontario be directed towards the Separate system while all others have their taxes directed towards the public system.  Both systems are, in effect, public.  There has always been resentment in some quarters to this arrangement, which some have unfairly put down to anti-Catholic animus.  This resentment has become vocal as the mis-management of the public school system in the area of my hometown has become quite evident.  In addition to the mismanagement, parents feel that their children are not getting as good an education in the public system as they could get in the Separate system.

 

Chairman of the Separate School Board Patrick Daly had an Op-Ed piece published in the newpaper the other week addressing the deficiencies in the arguments made by the circle of writers, and offered an olive branch of co-operation.  He did not neglect to mention the constitutional matters involved in revoking a black-letter right of a religious minority.  That article still did not quiet the circle.  Below are my comments, some of which are actually constructive.

 

On a side note, people do not discuss matters that are settled.  That the local newspaper continues to publish the letters from the circle of writers means that the editors of the newpaper themselves would like to see the matter re-opened.

The definition of a fanatic is a person who won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.  The Op-Ed piece by Separate School Board Chairman Pat Daly ought to have been the last word on the subject of destroying the Separate School system, but apparently not.

 

In their facts and in their tone, the circle of people who have written on this subject have revealed their motives.  The amount of money that will be saved the taxpayer through eliminating the Separate School system has finally been revealed, and amounts to a rounding error in the Ontario budget.

 

It is not the money that will be saved, but it is the sense of injustice that motivates this circle of writers.  They observe that the Separate School system is better managed and provides a better education than the public system does.  Since the Separate School system was established to provide for the education of Catholic children, it is unjust to those who are not Catholic to have to attend a system which is poorer in quality.

 

Rather than try to solve the problems in the Public system and provide a better education for the children of Ontario, this circle wants the better system eliminated.

 

The reason why, at this period in Ontario’s history, that the Separate Schools are better managed and provide a better education is not hard to state, but will be very hard for the Public Schools to overcome.  The reason is the superior intellectual and moral discipline combined with equal funding in the Separate system.  And the reason for the intellectual and moral discipline in the Separate system is that the system must reflect the values of the Roman Catholic Church.  Being concerned with the eternal truths, the Roman Catholic Church is inherently conservative.

 

The Public system and Ontario politics used to be animated by a Protestant ethic, which is not a bad thing.  But over the last fifty years, people lost confidence in the old Protestant ethic, and the dominant ethic in public affairs became humanist.  Humanism represents a slackening of intellectual and moral discipline.  While it may be impossible for Ontario ever to return to its old Protestant roots, it is possible by reaching further back to regain intellectual and moral discipline in the Public system.

 

The answer is to turn to the intellectual tradition of ancient Greece.  Plato and Aristotle knew a thing or two about educating youth, and were quite able to educate in a spirit of intellectual and moral discipline without a Church to back them up.  There are a few examples in North America in existence of a return to this style and spirit of educating youth.

 

When the focus and the touchstone of the Public system becomes education of youth, instead of becoming the refuse pit and receptacle of every social, moral, and intellectual fashion of the day, then the gap in quality which the circle of writers acknowledges exists will disappear.  The cause of the injustice which this circle feels will be gone with it.

-30-

Pro-abortion folks want it both ways

Vincent J. Curtis

8 April 2014

Margaret Shkimba is a part time columnist for my local newspaper.  I rarely read her.  However, today I slipped up and did read her column of today.  It was the story of how she was transformed from a pro-life person full of righteousness to a pro-abortion person full of righteousness.  Her beef today concerned the depiction of aborted babies on large signs from the bridges over a local highway.  To morally implicate abortion mills, apparently, is morally wrong.



Margaret Shkimba may rest assured that she has lost none of her youthful righteousness nor her youthful powers of reason.

Her numerous errors of fact and reason are only surpassed by the thunderous self-contradiction of argument.

She drags out a parade of horribles: of the women who died or were maimed as a result of abortionist butchery.  She makes quite clear that the conditions which led to such atrocities no longer obtain, yet she nevertheless sticks to her conclusion!

We are supposed to be horrified by the blood of women who died terrible, gruesome deaths as the result of a botched abortion, but we are not supposed to be horrified by terrible, gruesome death of the baby in an unbotched abortion.

While it may be that no one of us has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, it remains a compelling state interest to regulate and minimize abortion. The state has a responsibility to ensure its own existence and the prospect of killing off the next generation is anathema to that goal.

Margaret Shkimba ought to address herself to the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who ran an abortuary in Philadelphia for decades.  Gosnell was one of those sort of doctors that Shkimba would praise: he provided all sorts of abortion services even to the poor.  No public official bothered to inspect his clinic for fear that the Margaret Shkimba's of the world would raise the cry that the state was trying to intimidate and shut down abortion mills, to the detriment of women's health.

The very savagery which Shkimba condemns actually happened in Gosnell’s clinic under the current regime of abortion on demand.  Gosnell escaped the death penalty but is now doing life in prison for murder.  And Gosnell’s clinic is only the most famous of its kind; it is not the only one.

Not a shred of Shkimba’s argument holds together.  If Shkimba detests bloody death, she ought to oppose abortion not support it.
-30-