Earlier this week, I pointed out the NDP's task forces which are now listening to input from Canadians across the country as to the effects of the Harper recession as well as public ideas to deal with the economy. But it's worth pointing out another development on the task force websites: to my recollection, the "Join the Conversation" sections of the two sites represent the first time any of the national parties in Parliament have included comment threads on an official party site.
Of course, that figures to be a relatively small step in trying to generate the kind of public discussion that I'd ultimately like to see the NDP facilitating - particularly when both the Bloc and Greens have already allowed for comments on official party blogs. But it's still a plus to see some progress toward encouraging conversation rather than simply using party websites as tools for top-down communications.
Incidentally, I should note that in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, Dwain Lingenfelter seems to be ahead of his competitors in the same department as the lone contender to include a form for readers to reply to news items. Though it's interesting to note that doesn't seem to have been much public response to the opportunity.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
On choice opportunities
Steve has already discussed the latest Nanos second-choice numbers from the Libs' perspective. But to the extent it's possible to draw conclusions from the relatively small numbers involved in the poll, let's note a few other interesting trends in the responses.
To start with, the Libs, Cons and Bloc all figure to have more to lose than to gain to the extent that voters in general consider switching to their second choice rather than staying where they're currently parked. The Libs have 223 of their own current voters listing a second choice, to 160 supporters of other parties listing the Libs as a second option; for the Cons, those numbers are 157 and 122; and the Bloc have 44 supporters who have a second choice in mind, to only 18 voters who would make the Bloc their second choice.
In contrast, the NDP and Greens each have a greater amount of second-choice potential than current first-choice support which might move elsewhere - by a 129-87 margin for the NDP, and a 121-49 margin for the Greens. Which is a fairly remarkable result in a poll where nearly 36% of respondents didn't list a second choice at all, and suggests that those parties have the greatest amount to gain from anything which might shake up existing party loyalties.
Of course, the flip side of the likelihood of switching support is the degree to which respondents have locked into one party. There, the Bloc (52%) and Cons (44%) benefit from having the supporters least likely to have another party choice in mind. But for the Bloc's results, it's particularly striking how the second-choice results line up out of those who do express a preference.
With the Cons having just abandoned their efforts at wooing soft sovereigntists and the Libs now trying to make a similar move, one would expect there to be at least some prospect of Bloc movement to one or the other. But Bloc supporters gave the two the lowest second-choice numbers of any party with a tie at 7.7% (ignoring for the moment the Bloc's own numbers which are distorted by the party's lack of a national presence).
Meanwhile, both the NDP and the Greens would seem to have ample room to make inroads among current Bloc supporters, with the NDP leading the way at 19%. And with so few current Bloc voters having any interest in either the Cons or the Libs, it would stand to reason that the solid second-choice numbers for the NDP might only be amplified if current "no second choice" voters find reason to start looking elsewhere - say, if Gilles Duceppe makes a long-anticipated departure which gets taken as a sign that the Bloc is on the decline.
Combined with the apparent fluidity between NDP/Lib/Green voters on the nominal left and the Libs' likely move to the right, that figures to open up plenty of opportunities for the NDP to build itself up by focusing its efforts on current Green and Bloc supporters in hopes of building up a 32% minority as a progressive alternative to both the Cons and Libs. And the more successful the NDP can be in tailoring a message to voters who understandably see little difference between the Cons and the Libs, the better its chances will be of peeling support off the Libs' left flank as well.
To start with, the Libs, Cons and Bloc all figure to have more to lose than to gain to the extent that voters in general consider switching to their second choice rather than staying where they're currently parked. The Libs have 223 of their own current voters listing a second choice, to 160 supporters of other parties listing the Libs as a second option; for the Cons, those numbers are 157 and 122; and the Bloc have 44 supporters who have a second choice in mind, to only 18 voters who would make the Bloc their second choice.
In contrast, the NDP and Greens each have a greater amount of second-choice potential than current first-choice support which might move elsewhere - by a 129-87 margin for the NDP, and a 121-49 margin for the Greens. Which is a fairly remarkable result in a poll where nearly 36% of respondents didn't list a second choice at all, and suggests that those parties have the greatest amount to gain from anything which might shake up existing party loyalties.
Of course, the flip side of the likelihood of switching support is the degree to which respondents have locked into one party. There, the Bloc (52%) and Cons (44%) benefit from having the supporters least likely to have another party choice in mind. But for the Bloc's results, it's particularly striking how the second-choice results line up out of those who do express a preference.
With the Cons having just abandoned their efforts at wooing soft sovereigntists and the Libs now trying to make a similar move, one would expect there to be at least some prospect of Bloc movement to one or the other. But Bloc supporters gave the two the lowest second-choice numbers of any party with a tie at 7.7% (ignoring for the moment the Bloc's own numbers which are distorted by the party's lack of a national presence).
Meanwhile, both the NDP and the Greens would seem to have ample room to make inroads among current Bloc supporters, with the NDP leading the way at 19%. And with so few current Bloc voters having any interest in either the Cons or the Libs, it would stand to reason that the solid second-choice numbers for the NDP might only be amplified if current "no second choice" voters find reason to start looking elsewhere - say, if Gilles Duceppe makes a long-anticipated departure which gets taken as a sign that the Bloc is on the decline.
Combined with the apparent fluidity between NDP/Lib/Green voters on the nominal left and the Libs' likely move to the right, that figures to open up plenty of opportunities for the NDP to build itself up by focusing its efforts on current Green and Bloc supporters in hopes of building up a 32% minority as a progressive alternative to both the Cons and Libs. And the more successful the NDP can be in tailoring a message to voters who understandably see little difference between the Cons and the Libs, the better its chances will be of peeling support off the Libs' left flank as well.
Unhealthy grassroots
A longtime Con supporter offers this hint as to what anybody can expect in joining the party:
"The feeling is when we need something from them, they don't listen. But when they want us to do something, they come to us," said one long-time member, who feared losing his party membership if he were identified. "There is so much control by (Tory party) headquarters that it is insulting."Update: Cam has more.
Friday, April 10, 2009
A Brief History of Liberal Declarations that they Can't Go On Supporting the Harper Government's Every Whim
Following up on this morning's post, a quick trip down memory lane...
October 20, 2007:
October 20, 2007:
Dion told his MPs that it would be unthinkable for him to yield to the humiliation of supporting the throne speech and Harper's vision of Canada. He said that he'd merely be suffering the death "of 1,000 cuts," as long as he propped up the government and he would emerge from the whole ordeal with reputation and leadership damaged.December 2, 2007:
Dion has had a rough year dealing with constant questions about his leadership abilities, crucial by-election losses in Quebec, and low poll numbers that have forced him to prop up the Conservatives in order to avoid heading to the ballot box.January 14, 2008:
However, Dion vowed to The Canadian Press that the coming year will be a different story.
"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."
"I honestly don't see how they can support the budget. They are the opposition, they are there to oppose. This notion of appeasing and sitting on your hands, that's run its course. The political price to be paid for doing nothing is too high. If the Tories were to come out with a very Liberal budget, that might diffuse it, but what are the chances of that especially since they [the government] don't have a lot of money," said one top Liberal who requested anonymity.February 17, 2008:
"The Liberals are coming around to the notion that they can't continue to abstain so I think that's not a viable long-term strategy. So, I don't see the government getting Liberal support on this budget or abstaining."
"We hear now that ... Chretien and Jean Pelletier, his former chief of staff, are telling him it's a matter of credibility, that he can't support the government any more and that the timing would be right," Jean Lapierre told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.April 9, 2008:
Lapierre, now a political commentator for Quebec's TVA network, said Dion would be "comfortable with that advice."
The Liberals have hammered away at the government in recent weeks over the bill, accusing the Conservatives of seeking a back-door way to enforce an anti-immigrant agenda. But they have refused to say when or if they will actually oppose it in Parliament.October 20, 2008:
Some political observers say the Liberals could suffer damage within one of their core constituencies — ethnic communities in urban and suburban ridings — unless they back up their rhetoric with action.
One of the chief questions, being asked of returning Liberal MP's- are they prepared to endure another period of abstentions? The theory being, a weakened opposition, with no leader and no money, will be forced to dodge and weave to avoid another election. I would argue, that there should be little chance for a repeat of last spring's embarrassing string of abstentions.
Suitable for framing
A anonymous "close advisor of Michael Ignatieff" nicely sums up the problems with the Libs' track record of capitulations to the Cons in explaining why the party figures to try to force an election sometime around November-December 2009 (roughly translated from Le Devoir):
At some point, you can't wait forever. You can't play cat and mouse. You have to have the courage to defeat the government. With the economy deteriorating, you have to be capable of providing an alternative, or else you're endorsing the government.Of course, it's left unexplained how lacking in courage and endorsing the government on every confidence vote for over two years is supposed to be a mark in the Libs' favour in an election this fall. But voters who take the source's comments at face value would seem to have every reason to question why the Libs have stuck Canada with more Harper government now.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
On half efforts
I'll have plenty more to say about the Libs' 2008 election returns (discussed at the Pundits' Guide) over the weekend.
But here's the quick takeaway for now. During last year's general election campaign, while the Libs screamed to anybody who would listen that they and only they were able to stop Stephen Harper - not to mention begged their candidates, volunteers and donors to squeeze out every last drop - they made a deliberate choice to do less than they could to oppose the Cons despite obvious incentives to the contrary. And the "party executives" who made the call would figure to have some significant overlap with the people responsible for the Ignatieff coronation.
Edit: Definitely worth mentioning the Libs themselves who got pulled in by the campaign appeals.
But here's the quick takeaway for now. During last year's general election campaign, while the Libs screamed to anybody who would listen that they and only they were able to stop Stephen Harper - not to mention begged their candidates, volunteers and donors to squeeze out every last drop - they made a deliberate choice to do less than they could to oppose the Cons despite obvious incentives to the contrary. And the "party executives" who made the call would figure to have some significant overlap with the people responsible for the Ignatieff coronation.
Edit: Definitely worth mentioning the Libs themselves who got pulled in by the campaign appeals.
On interested parties
Hands up if you can spot what's missing from Jim Prentice's decision-making process when it comes to greenhouse gas emission regulations:
Ottawa announced the broad framework of its proposed greenhouse gas regulations two years ago, and would require companies to cut their carbon emissions in relation to their actual output rather than to specified levels.That's right: it's the vast majority of Canada, which Cons apparently see as having absolutely no interest in the results of any emissions policy. Which is why they're now using the position of the developed world's most notorious climate-change laggard as the higher boundary of what they're prepared to put in place, and pumping up the interests of the oil industry to further attack even that position.
It has yet to produce reduction targets for different industries, or the detailed regulations that are to come into force in 2010. Mr. Prentice said he hopes to unveil those rules before November, as he works to satisfy the Americans, on the one hand, and oil-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on the other.
On ethical issues
One of the emerging Con messages lately has been to try to claim that a lack of cabinet resignations or the like makes the Harper government an unusually clean and ethical one. And it looks like even some normally-canny commentators are buying the line so far. So let's take a look at the Cons' real track record to see just how problematic the assertion is.
In the time since Harper' Cons took office, among many other dubious actions by Con cabinet ministers:
- his Finance Minister handed a six-figure, no-bid consulting contract to a political crony in contravention of federal tendering guidelines, which was allowed to slide with nothing more than a promise not to do it again;
- four of his cabinet ministers were named as participants in the Conadscam scheme to evade the spending limits under the Canada Elections Act, with no apparent consequences;
- his Minister of Foreign Affairs and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport altered travel disclosures after the original amounts listed were made public, with no apparent consequences;
- multiple children and other relatives of Con MPs (including cabinet ministers) were found to have been hired by other Cons' offices, with no apparent consequences; and
- his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans used departmental resources for a false partisan attack, with no consequences other than repayment of the billed costs for the press release involved.
Now, it's certainly arguable that the above wouldn't be considered offences deserving of resignation in any event. But the common threads between each of them still send a strong signal that under Harper, being Conservative means never taking responsibility for any wrongdoing. Which hardly bodes well for the assertion that one can equate a lack of resignations with an absence of behaviour which might warrant one.
And indeed, the one exception to the zero-accountability rule only serves to highlight how the Cons have handled misdeeds within their own ranks. Remember what happened when Maxime Bernier actually did resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs over the Couillard scandal:
But when the Cons are willing to take a wait-and-see approach even when an incident which they strongly suspect might warrant dismissal has already been made public - and in light of the obsessive secrecy imposed by Harper - what are the odds that any incident which did warrant dismissal would be made public? And what incentives would that secrecy tend to create among Harper's cabinet ministers themselves?
Now, it is indeed theoretically possible that Harper's secrecy is serving only to hide just how ethically pure his government is. But Harper has done plenty to create reason to doubt that premise - and there's no reason to give him the benefit of that doubt now.
In the time since Harper' Cons took office, among many other dubious actions by Con cabinet ministers:
- his Finance Minister handed a six-figure, no-bid consulting contract to a political crony in contravention of federal tendering guidelines, which was allowed to slide with nothing more than a promise not to do it again;
- four of his cabinet ministers were named as participants in the Conadscam scheme to evade the spending limits under the Canada Elections Act, with no apparent consequences;
- his Minister of Foreign Affairs and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport altered travel disclosures after the original amounts listed were made public, with no apparent consequences;
- multiple children and other relatives of Con MPs (including cabinet ministers) were found to have been hired by other Cons' offices, with no apparent consequences; and
- his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans used departmental resources for a false partisan attack, with no consequences other than repayment of the billed costs for the press release involved.
Now, it's certainly arguable that the above wouldn't be considered offences deserving of resignation in any event. But the common threads between each of them still send a strong signal that under Harper, being Conservative means never taking responsibility for any wrongdoing. Which hardly bodes well for the assertion that one can equate a lack of resignations with an absence of behaviour which might warrant one.
And indeed, the one exception to the zero-accountability rule only serves to highlight how the Cons have handled misdeeds within their own ranks. Remember what happened when Maxime Bernier actually did resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs over the Couillard scandal:
Mr. Bernier submitted his resignation Monday morning, after learning that his ex, Julie Couillard, had given a potentially damaging interview to the French-language TVA network stating that he was careless with confidential documents.So the Cons have made it clear that in determining whether or not to force a minister's resignation, the only factor they'll take into consideration is political convenience.
He was told to wait it out. Still, he was pulled out of meetings throughout the day and was absent from a meeting of the cabinet's priority and planning committee, the cabinet's most important and powerful committee.
The powers-that-be wanted to assess just how bad the interview by Ms. Couillard would be. The waiting game was all about media strategy.
But when the Cons are willing to take a wait-and-see approach even when an incident which they strongly suspect might warrant dismissal has already been made public - and in light of the obsessive secrecy imposed by Harper - what are the odds that any incident which did warrant dismissal would be made public? And what incentives would that secrecy tend to create among Harper's cabinet ministers themselves?
Now, it is indeed theoretically possible that Harper's secrecy is serving only to hide just how ethically pure his government is. But Harper has done plenty to create reason to doubt that premise - and there's no reason to give him the benefit of that doubt now.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Comparison shopping
We now have two federal parties whose leaders have utterly lost interest in the ongoing recession, and have resorted instead to a cynical game of "look at the other guy!".
And then there's the NDP, which is working hard to actually listen to Canadians' needs during a time of crisis.
Needless to say, that type of focus doesn't tend to get rewarded in the headlines. But is there much doubt which course of action is closer to what Canadians actually want out of their leaders when it matters?
And then there's the NDP, which is working hard to actually listen to Canadians' needs during a time of crisis.
Needless to say, that type of focus doesn't tend to get rewarded in the headlines. But is there much doubt which course of action is closer to what Canadians actually want out of their leaders when it matters?
A historical inquiry
For obvious reasons, it figures to remain true that Michael Ignatieff supporters and his critics from the left will have different interpretations of his entreaties to Brian Mulroney. But in the interest of looking for common ground, I'll invite Lib supporters (and any other interested readers) to fill in the historical picture in case I'm missing something.
Simply put, is there any historical precedent - from any country or level of government - which meets the following test which to me boils down the key elements of Ignatieff's call?
(1) the leader of one political party
(2) spontaneously calling the former leader/head of government of another political party
(3) in the absence of any prior relationship between the two
(4) solely for a social/personal conversation (rather than, say, for policy advice or in response to a public event)
If it's the case that such calls (or meetings or other forms of interaction) have been carried out in the past, I'd have to figure they'd be likely to find their way into memoirs, biographies, or the like as a matter of historical interest - much as Ignatieff's call to Mulroney was seen as worth reporting by CTV. So is there anything on record to suggest that similar calls are indeed a matter of common courtesy?
Simply put, is there any historical precedent - from any country or level of government - which meets the following test which to me boils down the key elements of Ignatieff's call?
(1) the leader of one political party
(2) spontaneously calling the former leader/head of government of another political party
(3) in the absence of any prior relationship between the two
(4) solely for a social/personal conversation (rather than, say, for policy advice or in response to a public event)
If it's the case that such calls (or meetings or other forms of interaction) have been carried out in the past, I'd have to figure they'd be likely to find their way into memoirs, biographies, or the like as a matter of historical interest - much as Ignatieff's call to Mulroney was seen as worth reporting by CTV. So is there anything on record to suggest that similar calls are indeed a matter of common courtesy?
The reviews are in
The Winnipeg Free Press publishes a few excerpts from Parliamentary Democracy In Crisis, which figures to be even more of a must-read now:
Simon Fraser University professor Andrew Heard says Harper's prorogation was "unconstitutional... (T)his type of manoeuvre is simply unheard of among modern established democracies. It is a fundamental abuse of power to shut down a newly elected parliament at the moment when it is poised to vote non-confidence in the incumbent government."
The University of Toronto's Peter Russell says the crisis has "left a legacy that could be the basis of a serious constitutional crisis in the near future: a country dangerously divided over the fundamental principles and the rules of its parliamentary democracy."
The most damning indictment comes from David Cameron, chair of the University of Toronto's political science department. "Stephen Harper demonstrated that there was no bridge he would not burn, no low road he would not take, to stay in power. Beyond the deceit and the intentional obfuscation, what could not be forgiven was the prime minister's willingness to conjure up our national-unity demons...
"Successive prime ministers have seen it as their duty to manage the national unity file with prudence and care; to light a match near a can of gasoline -- to set east against west... simply for the sake of personal political survival was to scatter this primordial leadership obligation to the four winds."
Shocking
Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:
It took longer than usual this time. But I've figured out how the Mulroney feud within the Cons is the fault of outside agitators rather than the Glorious Leader.
It took longer than usual this time. But I've figured out how the Mulroney feud within the Cons is the fault of outside agitators rather than the Glorious Leader.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Leadership 2009 Links
I've added a new set of links at the top right for the duration of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, including the candidates' sites as well as media sources which have reported on the race so far or at least figure to do so as the race progresses. And for those looking for a complete set of coverage so far, I'll point out that last week's Moose Jaw leadership forum managed to receive some local reporting from Discover Moose Jaw (which naturally tends to be a particularly good source for Deb Higgins news).
I'll be looking to add to the list as the campaign progresses - so if you know of any additional local coverage which is available online, let me know and I'll include it in the list.
I'll be looking to add to the list as the campaign progresses - so if you know of any additional local coverage which is available online, let me know and I'll include it in the list.
Compare and contrast
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect the warranty on a new vehicle? Have no fear: Tony Clement is here to save you.
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect pension benefits which you earned through decades of service? Let there be no doubt: Tony Clement couldn't care less.
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect pension benefits which you earned through decades of service? Let there be no doubt: Tony Clement couldn't care less.
On illusions
Andrew Steele's post on the advantages of incumbency obviously reflects a Lib/Con-centric view of politics. (No, "parties of all stripes" don't set up artificial barriers to nomination challenges - it's the Cons and Libs alone who do so.) But the post is definitely worth a read in outlining evidence that the only real effect of incumbency is to dissuade otherwise-viable challengers:
Indeed, the studies mentioned by Steele are themselves based primarily on general election results rather than internal party challenges. And the inescapable message is that a substantial amount of the actual advantage of incumbents is based on the fact that opposing parties tend to mount something less than the greatest possible challenge.
Applying that principle to the Canadian political scene, it's then worth wondering whether many of our current political assumptions are themselves a product of parties failing to appreciate what may be possible.
The current conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the approximate party results which have been relatively consistent over the past decade will continue to be so. But is there any reason to think that the seeming tiers among Canadian political parties are any more an inevitability than the supposed advantage of incumbency? And if convincing potential candidates and supporters to push forward in the face of a perceived advantage is more than half the battle in making up any actual ground, then doesn't that become an even more important task?
Stephen Levitt, famous for Freakonomics, and Catherine Wolfram from Harvard did a complex econometric study into the causes of incumbent advantage, rather than simply measuring the advantage as earlier studies had done. They found that the source may actually be incumbents getting better at scaring away high-quality opponents.Now, Steele uses the evidence to suggest merely that the Libs and Cons should rethink their arbitrary barriers to nomination challenges (which would seem obvious to some of us simply from the perspective of internal accountability). But it seems to me that the concept applies far beyond nomination races alone.
Rather than anything based in reality, the advantage is that people thinking about running for public office over estimate the ability of the incumbent to retain office. High-profile candidates decline to run, fundraising goes uncollected by default, volunteers sit unmotivated on the sidelines and the incumbent gets back in because no one bothered to run hard against him.
Ken Carty from UBC found similar evidence in Canada. Where they are not intimidated, "local party organizations of non-winning candidates are in the position of being able to realize potentially significant electoral returns through the mobilization of additional personnel or financial resources in their constituency campaigns.
Indeed, the studies mentioned by Steele are themselves based primarily on general election results rather than internal party challenges. And the inescapable message is that a substantial amount of the actual advantage of incumbents is based on the fact that opposing parties tend to mount something less than the greatest possible challenge.
Applying that principle to the Canadian political scene, it's then worth wondering whether many of our current political assumptions are themselves a product of parties failing to appreciate what may be possible.
The current conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the approximate party results which have been relatively consistent over the past decade will continue to be so. But is there any reason to think that the seeming tiers among Canadian political parties are any more an inevitability than the supposed advantage of incumbency? And if convincing potential candidates and supporters to push forward in the face of a perceived advantage is more than half the battle in making up any actual ground, then doesn't that become an even more important task?
Monday, April 06, 2009
Burning question
Is it more problematic if Michael Ignatieff's latest love letter to Brian Mulroney is based on his agreeing with Mulroney's policies, or instead focused on their mutual agreement that all that counts is winning at all costs?
A teaching moment
Leftdog and others have rightly described the Sask Party's uranium development motion last week as a matter of mischief or nuisance rather than a serious policy issue. And that temporary effect went beyond creating at least a momentary division within the NDP, as it largely distracted the NDP's leadership candidates from presenting their vision for the province.
But fortunately, it doesn't seem to have taken long for the leadership contestants to get back on course. And Ryan Meili's education policy release today should help to push the discussion back toward where the NDP's potential leaders plan to take Saskatchewan. So with that in mind, I'll highlight what looks to be an important statement on one of the often-overlooked aspects of education policy:
Of course, one wouldn't expect too many candidates to disagree with the value of teachers in principle. But it's still worth highlighting the connection between the goals of the education system, and the people who dedicate their careers to achieving them. And the more any candidate keeps in mind the importance of the individuals involved in making any system work, the better that candidate's chances of being able to make positive changes within the system when the opportunity arises.
But fortunately, it doesn't seem to have taken long for the leadership contestants to get back on course. And Ryan Meili's education policy release today should help to push the discussion back toward where the NDP's potential leaders plan to take Saskatchewan. So with that in mind, I'll highlight what looks to be an important statement on one of the often-overlooked aspects of education policy:
Teachers—the heart and soul of the education system—deserve the opportunity to both improve upon their existing skills and learn additional and emerging skills throughout their careers. The central role of teaching needs to be recognized by providing pay that reflects the value of the work and the supports teachers need to do their work.Not surprisingly, Meili covers plenty of more traditional questions about education policy as well. But greater recognition of the value of teaching may itself play an important part in improving Saskatchewan's education system - both to ensure that those currently in the role receive every opportunity to better themselves, and to attract more educators to increase the options available to Saskatchewan students.
...
We need to find innovative ways to respond to the particular challenges of rural education. Many schools in rural Saskatchewan offer only a subset of the courses students need. For example, upper year science classes are absent in many schools in Northern communities. We will all be better served if local people return to their communities to become teachers, doctors and other professionals. We need to provide all students with access to the courses they need.
Of course, one wouldn't expect too many candidates to disagree with the value of teachers in principle. But it's still worth highlighting the connection between the goals of the education system, and the people who dedicate their careers to achieving them. And the more any candidate keeps in mind the importance of the individuals involved in making any system work, the better that candidate's chances of being able to make positive changes within the system when the opportunity arises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)