Tag Archives: education

The Average Person? Fishing for Information

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Every once in a while we realize we’re not as smart as we think we are. And while I’ve always believed myself to be diverse, well-read, and knowledgeable about a number of topics, when I’m ignorant of something I’m spectacularly bereft of information.

I’ve always felt an affinity to the Ramsay character from Robertson Davies’ Deptford Trilogy of books. Early on in his life, he dedicated himself to being a polymath – a person with an encyclopedic knowledge of a wide variety of topics. Myself, I find my interest easily piqued – and the advent of the Internet has made sating my thirst for knowledge even easier.

Yet, as broad of a spectrum of knowledge I believe I can cover, there are some areas in the old cranium that light just won’t penetrate. Last night my wife and I shone a flashlight into one of those areas and were overwhelmed by the cobwebs.

You see, yesterday we were trying to come up with names for our three new fish. Fortunately we didn’t have to come up with names for the other three new fish we had purchased during the day who made a spectacular dash for freedom through a well-coordinated dive and swim to the water system via our kitchen sink, but that’s another tragic story for another day.

My wife, my son, and my daughter like fish. I don’t. We had one male Betta (more coolly known as Japanese Fighting Fish) who passed away about a month ago after two years of bouncing back and forth in a bowl. Enough time had passed that we decided it was time to get another. But this time we went for three female Bettas mainly because they can live in the same bowl without ripping each other to shreds.

I say I don’t like fish, but that’s not entirely true. I just am supremely indifferent to them. To me they’re not pets in the same way my cat is. You can’t interact with a fish, you can’t have any sort of relationship with a fish – they’re just moving art. And, in celebration of their superlative uselessness, we’ve chosen to name our fish appropriately.

Our first fish, who didn’t last long due to the fact that he was sick the day we brought him home, was named Art. The second fish, the one that lasted two years, was also named Art. After all, the name made me laugh and it was only used for a couple of days. For differentiation sake, Art Mark II was a short form for Modern Art. We had determined that our new fish would be called Ren, for the Renaissance period, but that was before we went the female route.

No problem, my wife and I thought, we’ll just name them after famous female painters. Yeah. OK. You try it. If you come up with three then my hat is off to you. It was at this moment that all my thoughts of being a polymath came crashing down.

I started off strong with Emily. I mean, good solid Can-Con there. Then we decided to name the firery red fish after Frida Kahlo. And I’d like to say that choice was a result of my intense study of her genre and the life and influences of Diego Rivera, but it’s probably more true that my fondness for Salma Hayek has more to do with this knowledge than any artistic inclinations.

That was it. Two. Which is a problem when you have three fish to name. Right now it’s Emily, Frida, and Hey You! Not that the fish answer or even remember who I am after 10 seconds, but that’s beside the point. The principle of the matter is that I need a third name.

A search of the Internet was little help. My mind blanked as it was overwhelmed by a total lack of recognition for any of the names that appeared on any list I encountered. Not even the semblance of a hint of potential recognition. These are women who, I assume, are revered for their contribution to the arts world, and I could trip over them without having any inkling of who they are.

Recently I had the interesting experience of working with someone who reveled in her lack of knowledge. She was proud of her ignorance. Politics, sports, and other issues didn’t interest her. When interviewing she chose to actively avoid research, preferring to ask questions that “the people” would ask.

She describes herself as “the Everyperson.” I’m not so sure that’s what the Everyperson is. In her world, the Everyperson wouldn’t be disturbed by not knowing a third female artist – the Everyperson would move on to the next topic, uninterested in filling a gaping hole in their experience.

In fact, I’d like to think that people are more like me – interested in life and desirous of improving our knowledge base. We want to understand the world around us beyond the superficial, we want to feel attached to the events that shape our lives, and the only way we can do that is to get informed about them.

It’s not enough to sit back in the boat, fishing for information, and hoping it jumps onto your lap. To be successful you actively have to bait the hook, learn the right technique, and know the right places to find the fish.

After all, as the old Schoolhouse Rock cartoon proclaimed, knowledge is power. And every person I know is interested in that.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Last Words

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

As a man who values the English language, let me put this sentiment into a form that the American Literary Council will understand: I want tu beet yue with a shuhlaelee.

For those who aren’t fluent in idiot that translates to “I want to beat you with a shillelagh.

There is a movement afoot to simplify spelling and make it more phonetic, stating that it would help young children learn to read more quickly and would reduce the rate of illiteracy. And it’s a movement that’s been around, south of the border, for over 100 years.

Apparently, writing the way that I am and reading the way you are, is too much of a challenge and leaves English-speakers at a disadvantage to those speaking other languages, such as Spanish and German, whose words are spelled phonetically. According to the ALC, English has 42 sounds that are spelled in 400 different ways.

And that’s in the U.S. Can you image how they’d react to our extra u’s?

Empiric evidence is showing that the English language is being assaulted every day. Instant messaging has created its own sub-dialect of short forms and acronyms designed to save a few keystrokes – and long-term carpal tunnel syndrome – and those terms and phrases have entered into the mainstream.

Of course, the youth aren’t the originators of the acronym. Business has created its own jargon of FYI, ASAP, and QED!

Here’s a few more letters for all of you – STFU! Sorry, this is a family column.

It appears that more and more of us aren’t taking pride in the simple beauty of language. The ability to spell is rapidly going by the wayside as people rely on the bane of a writer’s existence – spell check. And grammar? Forget it – computer versions are often wrong and modern writers don’t have the background knowledge to know when to trust their electronic overlord and when to resist!

Forget people enjoying the beauty of the English language and the way it can be used to draw out emotions from plain text — the ability to string together a sequence of words into a coherent sentence is an ability that’s going the way of the dinosaur.

I’m not a stuffy grammarian – I will end my sentences with propositions from time to time if the text reads better. I appreciate the need for language to modify and change to meet the needs of the modern and future generations. However, there are lines that need to be drawn in the sand – and spelling is where that line is, uhm, spelled out.

If you dumb down your language because it’s too tough for those who speak it to write, then you are, in effect, lowering the expectations of your populace. Instead of challenging them to be better and raise the bar, you end up lowering the bar so that everyone can feel good about themselves – and it doesn’t matter if an ant couldn’t limbo under the threshold that you’ve set.

And why are we so liberal with language? Why is dumbing down the very way we express ourselves acceptable, when no one would ever consider applying a “close-enough” standard to science, medicine, or technology? The world around us continues to grow and require more knowledge, ability, and skills – so why shouldn’t the world within us, and our ability to express ourselves, follow the same path?

This is not a new battle. Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin were early advocates of simpler spelling, and they were followed by Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt. Others continue to champion the cause of simpler spelling and perhaps now they’ve found a generation who will find their crusade more palatable.

After all, in a world where BRB, LOL, and Gr8 are commonplace terms, why should they not be included in the mainstream text? Are their inclusions any more offensive than the modern-day executive whose inter-office memo is riddled with errors? Or are they any more grating than the person who misappropriates figures of speech during a conversation?

No, but a society that limits itself through speech limits its ability to grow. Like Quebecoisjoual, this dumbed-down language restricts the capacity of speech to explore new territories – only existing in its own familiar sphere. By refusing to challenge ourselves to be better through speech, we retard our ability to improve through thought. We eliminate a tie to our history, as when the etymology of words gets broken, so too does their connection to our past.

A simplified language would only exist in the here and now, whereas a fully formed and constantly adapting language not only retains its connection to the past, but it also offers the promise of continued refinement in the future.

After all, like Elvis sang, “they’re only words, but words are all I have to steal your heart away.”

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Ignorance Not Just an American Trait

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Har-dee-har! A recent survey reported on by the Associated Press shows that Americans are geographically challenged. And while it’s certainly tempting to sit on our high horse and chuckle over our dunderheaded friends to the south, in many ways, we’re no better.

The survey of 510 people interviewed in December 2005 and January 2006 showed that one-third of the respondents couldn’t find Louisiana on a map – despite the recent blanket coverage of Hurricane Katrina. On top of that, only 14 per cent believe speaking another language is a necessary skill, 60 per cent couldn’t find Iraq on a map of the Middle East, and almost half couldn’t find the Indian subcontinent on a map of Asia.

Time to guffaw right? Hey, what about that episode of Oprah recently that cast its supercilious eye on the education system in the U.S. and juxtaposed American students and their counterparts in the Far East reciting the first five American Presidents. Guess which group fared well.

But, as President Bush once so aptly put, “Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.”

Are we truly any better? We like to think that we are, but is it really true. While we love to show how enlightened we are by displaying our understanding and knowledge of American history and politics, how well do we know our own country?

Quick, name the first five Canadian Prime Ministers. Can you do it? Chances are you could name off Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe before you could ever nail Canada’s first five. OK, Sir. John A. is a given. And you’ll get double points for noting that he served twice. But really, did you honestly get Mackenzie, Abbott, Thompson, and Bowell? If you did you’re a better Canadian than I, because I had to look them up. Hell, I’m proud that I know who Charles Tupper is, but don’t ask me when he served.

We grow up learning an overview of Canadian history. We go over the three Cs of Canadiana: Cabot, Cartier, and Champlain. We cruise through the War of 1812, we learn about the British North America Act and Confederation. But does the average Canadian know any more about his or her own country than our neighbours to the south?

As Canadians, we often mock Americans as being almost xenophobic in their analysis of history. If it ain’t red, white, and blue, it doesn’t matter to you appears to be the model. But in a classic example of what it is to be a Canadian, we focus more on the history south of the 49 th than we ever do our own history. We complain when we’re ignored on the global stage, but we ignore the stories we’ve penned in our own back yard.

We externalize. We validate ourselves by what others think about us, as opposed to how we feel. That’s why we take such an active interest in the world around us – we’re desperate to make sure we’re a player on the global stage. Our ability to find other countries on the map reeks more of desperation than a commitment to intellectual pursuits.

Whether it’s Canadian TV, music, film, history, or even — to an extent – politics, we need outsiders to validate our experience. Say what you want about what the Americans don’t know about the world. There’s certainly a lot we can learn from them about appreciating what you have on your own.

That’s not to say the American model is ideal. There should be a balance between national pride and global awareness. Ignorance in any form should not be tolerated. We should strive to learn more – more about the people around us, their languages, their cultures, and their history, in addition to all the things that have made our country great.

However, the high horse that we’re sitting on rocks violently. Our glee in reveling in American ignorance only masks the lack of introspection we’ve undertaken in examining our own faults. We’re no better, no worse – in fact, we’re the same in a different way. If the Americans are the noisy neighbours who come and go as they please, party all night, and generally disrespect even the existence of those who live around them, we Canadians are no better in being the neighbour that runs around to everyone’s home, snootily making comments, while our own home and family is neglected.

As the old adage states, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – especially when we don’t even know who built the house we live in.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tecumseh’s Trees Obscuring Educational Forest

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In a true case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, the battle over a small public school in South London has become the focal point of the debate regarding the Thames Valley District School Board’s future – and it’s preventing us from taking a good hard look at the education system as a whole.

As a former student at South Secondary School – the big, bad entity that’s going to swallow up Tecumseh Public School – I found myself thinking that what was being obscured was the loss of what potentially is one of the most unique learning environments in the city – good ol’ SCI. Would annexing the neighbouring facility not precede an increase of student enrollment? Would that educational Mecca be trampled underfoot of a stampeding horde of additional students?

But my memories betray the reality of the situation. I remember a school where 700 kids grew together, learned together, and enjoyed a community environment that didn’t exist in other schools where enrollment was larger. We pretty much knew – or knew of – everyone else in the school and there was a comfort level attached to it. My worry, upon following this story, was that this small-school benefit would be lost.

Lo and behold, maybe it already has. And maybe we’re arguing for a past that no longer exists. In speaking with South’s current principal Barb Sonier, and Chris Dennett, the manager of public affairs and community relations for the TVDSB, today’s situation differs greatly from my almost 15 years’ past reality.

South is bursting at the seams. With nine portables and over 1,000 students, there’s no elbow room. The student body can’t fit into the auditorium at the same time. How can minds expand when there’s no room to breathe? So, with declining elementary enrollment and need for space, the annexation of Tecumseh’s facilities by South just makes sense, right? Maybe. But perhaps there are other answers.

And by focusing on these little brush fires, we’re missing out on actions that we can take to put out the raging inferno that’s building. We can’t continue to apply band-aid solutions to our education system. We can’t continue to play feast or famine with various schools, depending on demographic or residential swings. The time to take broad, decisive actions is now.

We have to stop thinking regionally. We should be thinking of the betterment of all students. It’s hard to argue that the kids in Old South shouldn’t be able to go to their school. It’s hard to look at their cherubic little faces in the paper, or see the heart-felt appeals they make to save their school, and say that it’s not possible. But it’s equally hard to say that other students – maybe older, maybe from a different area – don’t have the right to a maximized education as well.

How do we decide? Case by case won’t work. And pie-in-the-sky calls for more funding will continue to go unheeded. It’s time to work towards a cure of our education system, not just treating the symptoms when they flare up, with the tools at our disposal – today.

And first and foremost, we have to look at where education should be going. Our system has been in place for years, but the world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Are our schools meeting the needs? Not all that long ago, you could argue that having a separate school board for Catholic students and a quote-unquote public system (which, not too long ago was often referred to as Protestant…) made sense. In today’s multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one would be hard pressed to find an argument in favour of the duplication of effort, the waste of resources, and the imbalance in facilities.

Patching the holes won’t work any more. We need to tear down and rebuild the system. We need to find one that works for all students. Obviously money is at a premium, so why not do our best to maximize the allocation of these precious resources? Instead of two separate school boards, roll them together and focus on the creation of programs that embrace our society’s multi-denominational status, so that we can learn to love, respect, and understand one another.

And the short-fall in the elementary system won’t be restricted to there. In time, those diminished numbers will filter up to the high school system. Do we wait for a crisis at that time, or do we take the steps necessary to ensure our system, as a whole, is ready for the challenges that are before us?

Tradition has a role to play in our society and we should embrace it, but not at the expense of any child’s education. Although the decisions may be tough, we have to ensure that the already stretched dollars and overtaxed teaching resources aren’t strained until the point where they snap. It’s time for someone to take a carte blanche approach to the education system and create a best-practices scenario for today’s demographics.

We can’t just hold onto the past. The tighter we squeeze, the faster it slips through our fingers. The South of my memories is gone – but the commitment to excellence in education remains. Let’s just make sure that today’s students have the same opportunity to succeed that I did. And that comes with defining a plan, using resources wisely, and dealing with today’s realities – not yesterday’s memories.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Faith-Based Funding an All or Nothing Proposition

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

A group called the Multi-Faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Religious Schools is demanding that the Ontario government provide financial support for all religious education system – but what they’ve done is open a Pandora’s Box which may result in the final separation of Church and State when it comes to education.

As it stands now in this province you have the existing Public and Catholic school boards. Grandfathered in from time immemorial, or Confederation in 1867, the Roman Catholic school board has been guaranteed funding. And now, as our communities change so too must we look at what’s fair in a new light.

Because we’ve always done it is no longer a valid argument. To deny one faith the right to have their religion-based education system funded smacks of discrimination. In fact, in 1999 a United Nations committee found that Ontario was violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So, in this case, equality is the right thing to do – but there are two ways to get there. We can either provide funding for all religions to establish school boards and run educational systems – or we can cut off the flow of money to the Catholics.

While in a perfect world we’d be able to offer across-the-board-funding, the fact of the matter is that we don’t have the necessary resources to be everything to everyone. Which makes the choice clear – one publicly funded school board open and accessible to all, and those who want their children educated in an alternative system will have to foot the bill on their own.

In this country, the only two types of school boards that should be funded are ones based on language – English and French, befitting our status as a bilingual nation. We are a secular society and, as such, our government has no place in defining its practices – or funding programs – based on religious beliefs.

Maybe, at one time, it made sense to offer a separate Catholic school board due to the religious demographic makeup. But increasingly Ontario is benefiting from an influx of immigrants – many of whom are representatives of a wide variety of religions. By choosing to publicly fund one religion over another, we are in fact tacitly affirming their second-class citizen status. But it’s not just enough to cut off funding and wash our collective hands of the teaching of religion in the classroom – that would be depriving our children of a valuable learning opportunity. Instead, we need to get creative with our education system and work towards developing a curriculum that meets the needs of today’s reality and anticipates the requirements of the future.

Instead of guaranteed funding for one religious system, the Ontario government, and those of all provinces around Canada, should redirect those resources towards the creation and implementation of a new program in our school system – the teaching of faith.

The issue of religion in the school system is a touchy one for many. There are those who would love to see a return to the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public system and the distribution of those little red New Testaments. And that’s truly a fine proposition – as long as they’re accompanied by little blue Talmuds, little yellow Qurans, and a rainbow of texts outlining the belief systems from around the world.

We need to stop focusing on one religion at the expense of another. Atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever — we all will benefit from a generation that has grown up learning about each other’s religions, beliefs, or lack-thereof. Intolerance and hate breed from ignorance. Understanding the shared concepts of religions, in addition to where they differ, will bring us closer together as a people.

And, by teaching faith, we are in fact bringing out students closer together. We would enable students with different religious beliefs to share their stories, their particular practices and rituals, and their history with their classmates – opening them up to a greater world of understanding. In addition, beyond learning the respective tenets of the various belief systems, our students would be able to explore the nature of faith and why it has existed since the earliest humans. An examination of why certain people believe will help gain insight into the human character.

The world around us is changing rapidly. And, as our world becomes increasingly multi-cultural, a learning system that embraces all belief systems from Atheist to Zionist would help our next generation learn about tolerance and prepare them for an increasingly integrated society.

We are less segmented and our cultural fabric is interwoven with threads from a variety of races, creeds, and religions. And not one thread is more important than another – which is why, in an all or nothing proposition, the Ontario government must choose nothing at first, and then work to develop a public program that includes all for the benefit of everyone.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved