Canadian Politics Today

As the employer of public schools, employees should go where they're told to go.  I'm sure some kind of system can be worked out to provide incentive for teachers to want to go there, like extra pay.  When a hockey player is traded to a new team do they have a choice?

You're worried about the teachers?  I'm worried about the kids.

Students coming from broken homes, bad neighbourhoods, and generally bad environments have a very hard time breaking out of the cycle their parent are struck in, so education is really far and away the most effective way to get them out of that cycle.  Every effort needs to be made to help them.  Anyone who calls themselves a teacher should be game for that task.  If certain kids are out of control, then schools should get them in control.

You can’t force someone to go work somewhere.  Your analogy fails as a hockey player signs a contract and has a collective agreement that lays those situations out. 

I suppose the employer can try and bargain that in to the collective agreement.   Good luck with that.  But you don’t get to just tell employees which city you are sending them to work and live in. 

As the employer of public schools, employees should go where they're told to go. 

And kids do too. Which is why all the middle class whites in the cities fled to suburbs which have separate school systems, and the ones in the cities go to private schools if they can possibly afford it. Teachers don't want to work for public school boards that might assign them to an inner city neighborhood. And you can't make them.

From what I've read there is massive discipline and respect problems in these schools, from children who come from single parent families (and the single parent is a life-long welfare mom). The school district doesn't impose discipline, and too many parents couldn't care less what their kid does or what grades he or she gets. A kid practically has to throw a teacher out the window to get expelled there so it can be pretty bad.

This sounds like a shock piece.  The stuff you're reading sounds typical but it doesn't really play out like this.  There are some good classes/schools/teachers and problems too.  But it's not like you can pick one school as 'inner city' and label it as being a certain way.

I have limited knowledge, but some knowledge of this.  It seems to me that the teachers are not so bad in these schools, and the schools can also be good or bad - you have some great programmes but they can only do so much.   

Well true enough.  The schools themselves aren't often the nicest looking either.  Broken windows theory.

Details are highly debatable.  My point was that providing better education (and other programs) for minority student populations throughout grade school that are struggling with SAT scores is much better than giving them token school admissions and jobs.

Details are highly debatable.  My point was that providing better education (and other programs) for minority student populations throughout grade school that are struggling with SAT scores is much better than giving them token school admissions and jobs.

Well, the best thing you can do is socialize them into wanting to be part of a productive and positive community.  Some will pick it up and go far.  Others, many others, will fail.

Toronto had something that was lauded by Freakonomics: Pathways.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-fix-a-broken-high-schooler-in-four-easy-steps-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

It's a little of a rosy picture, but paying them was part of the program as that is a way to get them to be serious.

Now, let's talk about that.  There is a massive army of volunteers that could be put to use at low/no cost from within the poor.  This was something like 'workfare' which I ardently opposed when Harris introduced it, but now I think it could be a great alternative to paying people to do nothing.  As long as the jobs are productive, and lead to other employment I think such programs could be good.

The problem is that nobody at the top can tell what is well-managed and what isn't in the public realm.

This got ZERO play, except for a 7am interview on CBC metro morning.

https://angusreid.org/canada-culture-wars-climate-change-environmentalism-capitalism-rich-poor/

Two part deep dive on environment and Capitalism.

For the climate one, a shocking number of people believe in human caused warming.

They do a breakdown of attitudes into groups.


Activists, Accommodates, Middle, Skeptical, Defiant

Each about 20%... Give or take...

Even the skeptics are 57% believers in anthropogenic climate change.

So maybe 🤔 the terms are...

On capitalism, folks are more and more suspicious...

But... 73% (!!!) Support a wealth tax?

And yet only 35% support redistribution?

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔