| Introducing Inroads | |
Introducing Inroads #5 | ||
|
The main theme of this issue combines education and intergenerational justice. Are we educating our young people for the world that awaits them-and is the world already stacked against them? Henry Milner and Frances Boylston begin by surveying the data on Canada's educational performance. They find good reason to be concerned. The next three articles give voice to those concerns. Bill Robson attacks the myth of a corporate plot to take over public education. The main problem, he argues, is educators who push public schools in a contentless and assessment-free direction that is bad for most kids-and unpopular, not only with business people, but with parents and many teachers. Gary Caldwell reports on the experience of Quebec's “Estates General on Education.” Underlying poor student performance, he discerns a generalized shirking of responsibility: by government, school boards, religious authorities, teachers and parents. And a solution would require overcoming “overbureaucratization,” family structures, and the influence of the media-social phenomena beyond the reach of the schools. Christopher Simon and David May reach a similar conclusion in their report on an innovative Washington State school reform program. Is it realistic, they ask, to expect schools to solve problems they did not create? Turning to intergenerational justice, Patrick Fafard addresses the high unemployment, lack of job security, and declining income that have led many young people to “drop out.” Policy-makers must start taking age as much into account as they do gender and region. Baby boomers and older Canadians, he contends, should shoulder a greater share of the costs associated with addressing the deficit and the debt, a debt incurred to pay for services that they have consumed. Brian Mayes adds a concrete proposal to address the needs of young people-a national youth service. Such a program, he maintains, could be part of an effort to increase access to education and training. Canadian youth would see a government program that benefits them, while learning that rights of citizenship come with responsibilities. In a feature article from Moscow, Arkadi Tcherkassov finds great irony in the fact that he, like other Russian Democrats, have to support Boris Yeltsin in this year's presidential election. Hopes have been dashed since the 1991 democratic revolution, yet, despite all, there is still the freedom to publish one's ideas-as in this article. Faced with the danger of an unreconstructed Communist retaking the presidential palace, Tcherkassov pleads, “Do not lose faith in us and our revolution.” The future of the NDP comes up in several guises. Co-editor Arthur Milner invited four leading Ontario NDPers — Dave Cooke, Frances Lankin, Hugh MacKenzie and Simon Rosenblum — and one former senior public servant-Michael Mendelson-to talk about what they learned from their experience in office. Their roundtable conversation makes for provocative reading as the party rebuilds in Ontario. A very different opinion is presented by Robert Martin. Voters, he claims, threw out Bob Rae not because of his economic policies but because his government devoted itself to advancing the interests of “victim groups.” The NDP-and the Left in general-has made itself irrelevant by failing to attack the economic system that has rolled back gains achieved by poor and working-class Canadians. Former Saskatchewan NDP premier Allan Blakeney replies to John Richards' critique of the NDP in Inroads 4, arguing that, by and large, the party is coming to terms with fiscal realities. Meanwhile, Richards reports that the B.C. NDP government's attack on the federal budget raises “fed bashing” to new heights. It has been said that the curse of being Canadian is endless constitutional debate. Inroads, in this regard, is eminently Canadian. The first issue appeared in the summer of 1992, in the midst of debate over the Charlottetown Accord. In Inroads 4, we dealt with the then upcoming Quebec referendum. In the wake of the October 30 referendum, John Richards and Henry Milner tried to work out the strategic calculations of the key players in the “constitutional game,” and sketched a compromise acceptable to them. Their proposal was then sent to a number of leading figures in the constitutional debate. Richards and Milner's contribution, and responses from Allan Blakeney, Marcel Côté, Greg Marchildon, Tom Flanagan, Michael Walker, Gilles Paquet, Donald Savoie, Tom Kent, Gordon Robertson, Garth Stevenson and John Whyte, complete this issue. Central to Richards and Milner's argument is that, until the Constitution is amended to assure Quebec's legitimacy in legislating to promote and protect the French language and culture, no real progress is possible. Greg Marchildon proposes an interesting compromise on the subject of duality, one that may prove acceptable to moderate Quebec nationalists and to many others elsewhere in Canada; and Quebec federalist Marcel Côté writes convincingly on the reality of Quebec's distinct society. Several of the respondents challenge the need for-or possibility of-constitutional amendment, contending that administrative decentralization is preferable. A minority insist on an interpretative clause, like the distinct society clause in the Meech Lake Accord. The section as a whole is a lucid, concise-yet comprehensive -portrayal of prospects for the Federation. |
 |
 Return to Contents To see if copies of this issue are available, go to the Back Issue page |
