The soft bigotry of low expectations, is institutionalized in our public education system. Often the refrain one hears at parent-teacher interviews, “Well, there is not really a problem because Little Suzie is passing.”  The silent voice inside the parent’s head, is saying but it barely is pass a 50. If the parent voices it verbally, in reference for help for their child, often low expectations are reinforce by the system.

I see the soft bigotry of low expectations in the rules and regulations of the education system.  It is within the rules and regulations , reading between the lines, and never written in black and white, that allows low expectations to flourish and thrive. 

If Taught Properly, are three words that you do not normally associate with the education system. Or in my own observations, I have not heard the words coming out of the mouths of educrats.  I have never received a phone call from the school, when my child receives a low mark, but still passing, but I have received notification of when my child has failed a test. In my corner of the world, all parents receive notification regarding failing grades, but never a notification regarding low passing grades. Low expectations rearing its ugly head. I wonder,  if taught properly, how many of the children would be sitting in the high 60s and 70s, instead of having the largest group sitting in the low 60s and 50s.

IF TAUGHT PROPERLY

There is a warning in this story, “More “Chronically Unemployable” people likely product of education system” http://www.canada.com/business/More+chronically+unemployable+people+likely+product+Canada+education+system+observers/3441459/story.html

Is our current education system producing three classes of citizens?

- the highly employable (high incomes)

- the menially employable (minimal incomes)

- the unemployable (no incomes other than welfare, food stamps, permanent disability allowances).

That is the prediction of a futurist, Richard Worzel, who predicts Canada could easily slip into Third World status because of its education policies and practices. He was commenting on the recent news headlines saying: “The Canadian Council on Learning has given Canada’s education system an F.”

I have a ten year old grandson who cannot read and definitely needs special attention.  He may not be unemployable as such because he is a star athlete and might very well be in the Gretzky-league for jobs and income in the future.

However, I do worry for him and for others who are not being taught to read, to tell time, to count money, or do all the other things that a 10 year old should be able to do academically by now.  Or certainly in due course, give a year or two.

Are these “untaught” people, those without other marketable talents, going to be consigned to permanent welfare rolls or worse?  To being layabouts, to joining the criminal underclass, to those festering in the prison system?  To those who will increasingly be a danger to our peace and safety and civil society?

In the story Penny Milton, CEO of the Canadian Education Association, commented “… that Canada educates its most able students just as well as any other country. However, the key is to improve the levels of equity among all Canadians.”

I challenge her statement and wonder if she really means we should aim for some dystopian level of mediocrity for all.  Surely she means we should provide equal access to opportunity for our young, and that might just mean a disproportionate amount of attention and funding for those who need it the most.  At least at the elementary levels where we should aim for students to at least master the 3 R’s – the tools of learning.

Why do so many people, “progressives” and intelligentsia completely miss or dismiss the point made by parent advocates who want their kids to master the 3 R’s as a starting point?  Why are these parents dismissed, derided, and put down as “traditionalists”?

I hope our 21st Century teaching does not engender a class of “left-behinders” and a growing host of very frustrated parents who are getting nowhere in their advocacy for their special needs children who are not being taught to read, write, and figure.

Why is there such a deliberate, concentrated agenda to refuse to teach these basics?

I think the answer is in the CCL report.

http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/AboutCCL/PresidentCEO/20100825TakingStockReport.html

“Similar to many countries, however, Canada tends to equate the concept of lifelong learning with programs and policies aimed at upgrading the skills and knowledge of adults. While such efforts are necessary and commendable, they do not reflect the breadth and scope of learning as a
lifelong process. In 1996 the OECD identified the four key features that characterize a comprehensive approach to lifelong learning, as follows:
• a systemic view in which all forms of learning
are connected and cover the entire life cycle;
• a focus on the centrality of the learner, on
meeting the needs of learners rather than on
the supply side;
• recognition that motivation to learn is an
essential foundation for learning throughout
life; and
• an understanding that education policy
has multiple objectives, including personal
development, knowledge development, and
economic, social and cultural objectives—all
of which may change over the course of an
individual’s lifetime”

The weaknesses of the current education system, and life-long learning approaches are as follows:

“• a tendency to be supply-oriented, with
objectives centred primarily on institutional
mandates;
• lack of recognition of the integral role of
life-wide learning from early childhood
through the adult years, and the variety of
experiences that span the full spectrum of
formal and informal learning pathways that
shape people’s lives and;
• an absence of clear objectives, appropriate
and responsive lifelong learning policies,
as well as national data, measures and
benchmarks.

In my eyes, we are going in this direction, as the Canada.com article states:

“He said within a generation, the economies of highly industrialized countries will be divided into three types of workers:

- Gold collar workers, who are the creators and innovators in society;

- Menial labourers, who work for low wages, are paid hourly and are often on contract;

- and the unemployable, who have no marketable skills and cannot find work.”

“Why do so many people, “progressives” and intelligentsia completely miss or dismiss the point made by parent advocates who want their kids to master the 3 R’s as a starting point?  Why are these parents dismissed, derided, and put down as “traditionalists”? 

Yet so many parents as outlined in the CCL report, that parents pay for tutors to work on the basics.

“SCAL data suggests that parents who had hired
tutors were more likely to report that schools were
falling below their expectations in a variety of
areas, including teaching the basics and teaching
students to love learning than parents who had not
hired tutors.”

I am sure the 33 % of parents hiring tutors, the percentage has jump to the 40s from 2007.

“Why is there such a deliberate, concentrated agenda to refuse to teach these basics?”

Just this afternoon, I had been reading various articles on free trade, globalization, and government objectives.  that points in the direction, that education and health services will remain as an institutional mandate as described by the CCL report, based on the needs of the government, and not based on the individual’s needs. By refusing to teach the basics well, among other educational needs, the government can limit the amount of people entering into post-secondary education, and control the number of people seeking high-pay, and highly skilled jobs.

As the CCL report moans about the low number of graduates in the science and engineering field, and at the same time praise the science achievement of high school students. Once in university, one needs a firm foundation on the basics in all aspects of science and math. The CCL report should have reported the increase in remedial math, reading and writing courses at the post-secondary institutions, The courses concentrates on the basics, the same basics that should have been taught in the K-12 system.