A New Grading System

Imagine a young university student, looking as if he lost all the hope in the world, walks into a crowded but silent classroom. Like most of his classmates, the young student wonders around and finally settle down when he spots his names on a piece of paper. This immense silent is quickly replaced with hurried but stable scribbling when the teacher gives the class permission to begin. Time passes quickly and one by one, each student leaves the room filled with gratitude and relief that the stressed day is eventually over. That thought only lasted one second because the next thing they have to worry about would by a alphabet on the exam paper which was completed just a minute ago. Almost every university student have had this experience least once, or even numerous times during their life; anxiously awaiting for the final "verdict".    

The issue of students believing that their marks overrides the knowledge they acquired inside their classroom has become a concerning matter to many institutions around the world. Some universities, like in the states, have abolished grades due to accumulated stress caused by exam results. These universities have received a positive feedback which influenced other institutions to follow its lead; furthermore, one of them is the University of Toronto. The reason for this would be that they wanted their students to "focus less on marks and more on "intellectual engagement" ". Their law faculty is planning to drop the traditional letter grades and instead use a five category of marks; high honours, honours, pass, low pass, and fail. 

The University of Toronto Faculty of Law proposed this change because they believe that this proposal would aid the students in lowering the stress and anxiety that they have while waiting for their grades. Furthermore, it allows the professors to spread the students out within categories or "class ranks" which they prefer since according to U of T, is a much easier and less time consuming procedure. However, I personally think that this new proposed method does not help at all! As student, I know that learning the material in class should come first, but it is also necessary to worry about the grades that would pop up on the report card. By changing the grades into categories, nothing would be change. Instead of worrying about getting an A, "now students can stress about getting high honour's". Only the word changed, the meaning is still the same as before. 

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/23/u-of-t-law-school-adopts-new-grading-system/

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/student-affairs/news/1876

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4133/u-of-t-may-do-away-with-letter-grades.html

http://www.slaw.ca/2012/05/01/university-of-toronto-law-may-change-grading-system/

Bill 36 Addresses Changes to Year-Round Schooling

                       

Recently, the BC government has made amendments to Bill 36 that may drastically alter the province’s system of education. The current standard school year calendar could be replaced by year round schooling as early as the fall of 2013. According to B.C Education Minister George Abbott, the change is a modest one, and will accommodate the needs of modern schooling. “We will be moving away from what has for over 100 years the standard school calendar,” he says. “The (standard school calendar) was established in a different age when children were needed during the summer months to help harvest crops, but what we now have is a pretty strong case that children learn better when they don’t have a long summer break, that short periods away from school is better.” Unlike its name suggests, the number of teaching days (193) and vacation days will not change. year round schooling will have short, frequent breaks dispersed throughout the year. Education Minister George Abbott has tabled legislation that would get rid of the standard school calendar beginning in the fall of 2013. Luckily, this calendar is not mandatory for all schools- schools that are uncomfortable with this new system can consult parents and students and seek permission from the ministry to establish its own calendar.  

Mixed responses have risen from teachers, students and parents regarding this matter. B.C. Teachers’ Federation president Susan Lambert says that “teachers need their summer break”, and that educators will be reluctant to give up their extended vacation. “It’s a very intense profession, where you are teaching for five hours a day, and then doing preparation and marking and evaluation” (Vancouver sun). Other teachers say that the long summer break hinders student learning- "While there are still obviously important agrarian elements in our society, some would say a 10-week break in the middle of summer may… not aid student learning” says Education ministry spokesperson Scott Sutherland to CBC. 

The idea of year round schooling has been around in Ontario for many years, but negative backlash from parents and teachers alike have prevented the system from taking effect. In BC however, a handful of private and public schools have already adopted year round schooling and have operated successfully for many years under the system. Personally I find the year round schooling system relatively acceptable. I am easily stressed, and more frequent breaks in the school year will help me manage my stress and workload more efficiently. It’s also true that during longer breaks students tend to forget about what they've learned, so shorter, more frequent breaks may result in more effective use of time and course review.

References:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1170354--b-c-opens-the-door-to-year-round-school
http://bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=5630
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/04/26/bc-school-calendar-eliminated.html
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120426/bc_school_year_legislation_120426/20120426/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Learning at a distance: a broader perspective

Through the recently proposed Bill 36 we observe that distributed and online learning programs may be taking a a more significant role in our province's education systems. The amendments have broadened the scope of the available programs, and are extending their access to a greater number of students. Distributed and online learning have been targets for heated debates in the recent years; there are valid arguments for each side, but as long as the programs are properly implemented, it is an excellent supplement to our current education system.


Firstly, it is important to establish that learning is very subjective and therefore should not be "one size fits all"; what distributed and distance learning does is offer students more options. There is more flexibility for the student to decide when they do things and how they do things. In a traditional classroom, students have to complete the course according to the paces of their teachers, their peers, or according to the annual or semester based school schedule. While some argue that students won't be motivated enough to do any learning, it's an incredibly fallacious  assumption. There are many students who are very self motivated, and these students should be able to be have this option. If online learning isn't suited for a certain student, they could simply just opt out; online learning in this case isn't intended to replace the system, but to supplement the system. This can relieve the overwhelming class sizes and would be more cost-efficient in the long term.


The other benefit is that with online learning students are able to take courses that they may not be able to otherwise take. Some students may be from remote areas, or the course may just not be offered in their schools due to lack of demand. With online learning they are able to have opportunities that extend further than what their schools offer, and students should have the freedom to pursue their interests. However, some may point out that oftentimes the material is just handed out and the instructors don't do a lot of personalized teaching. This may be true, but at the very least the organized resources are there and there is legitimacy to what they've learned. Even though there isn't much of personalized teaching, the instructors are nevertheless there to answer the problems or questions you have. 


What Bill 36 proposes is not to completely eradicate the current public school system, but rather increase the opportunities for the students. Rather than to replace, it is intended to be complementary. There are undoubtedly some minor flaws, as with any education system, but the benefits clearly shine through. Learning is subjective, and traditional education may not be offering enough options for our students. Sure, it's different from how we've always done things, but if we set aside our prejudices it could really improve our current system; sometimes we need to stand at a distance in order to see on a broader perspective.


Resources:
http://www.fastweb.com/student-life/articles/3235-online-vs-classroom-which-is-right-for-you
http://cynthia-jones-shoeman.suite101.com/traditional-classrooms-versus-online-learning-a167865
http://www.technical-vocational-schools.com/online_classroom_learning.aspx
http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/pros-and-cons-of-online-education-for-the-world-citizen-250687.html

BCIT student protests

BCIT Computer Science students are currently protesting the mandatory gym time that exists only for them. Other students at BCIT don’t have to go through this class to graduate. Every Thursday they are required to check in at the campus gym at 8:30am and stay there for 50 minutes.

The primary complaint students have is that they are the only faculty to have this requirement, which reinforces the stereotype that CompSci students are “exercise-phobic geeks” “People have a stereotype image of a computer programmer. It’s usually a rotund guy with big thick glasses and bad shirts hunched over a computer in his parents’ basement,” says Holisky[a protesting student]. Those people exist, he says, “but you can’t tell most of us apart from business students.” And business students, he adds, aren’t forced to take gym.

Not only does this have a negative impact on the image of these students, it often provides additional hassle to the commuter student, who may have to travel upwards 1hr to arrive at campus, forcing them to wake up earlier. Students have also commentated that it is quite easy to avoid actually exercising while there, defeating the purpose of this program ““When I’m there, I do as little physical activity as possible. I’ve started taking advantage of the steam room. It’s a good way to start the day,” says Holisky.  

I think that if the school wants to implement mandatory gym time, they should do it across all faculties and not single out individual groups of people. This plays too much on stereotypes and ignores the fact that though there may be a larger amount of inactive people in CompSci, there are also people who work out regularly, and others that despite being in other majors, are equally unfit.  However, I’d prefer it that the school gets rid of this requirement all together.  The students at BCIT are all adults who understand the benefits of regular exercise, and should be allowed to make a choice for themselves whether or not they want to.  It is not up to the school to spoon feed them a healthy life style at this point in their life. 

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/20/mandatory-gym-ctrl-alt-delete/

               In Canada, abortion is not limited and restricted by the law; however, some non-legal obstacles still exist. Early in Canadian history, abortion was made illegal by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, introduced by Pierre Trudeau (Liberal Government).  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the existing laws were unconstitutional and stuck down the Law. From that point on, Canada has had no laws governing the subject of abortion. Presently, abortion is still carried out in Canada but the amount of abortions performed has significantly decreased over the number of years.

            As the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper is determined not to reopen the issue and debate on abortion; however, when the MPs considered whether to create a committee to examine the legal definition of when a human life begins this issue was inevitable. According to Woodworth, the Conservative MP, he defined human life “as the moment when a child has fully emerged from the mother’s birth canal”. Within the Government, the positions of the Conservative, New Democratic, and the Liberal party are outlined. Harper, along with the Conservatives repeatedly stated that they have no interest on this topic and does not wish to bring the debate back at all. While the New Democratic Party they want to reexamine and clarify whether a fetus is a human being. Finally, the position of the Liberals would be around how the abortion issue is a matter of individual conscience and moral. The three standings of the Parties would result in the heated debates within the government. Furthermore, three issues regarding the border defining human life results would be the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding, the coerced abortion law, and maternal health. Anti-abortion supporters have begun to take actions by influencing the government to cut funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Another issue that was strongly in disfavored by the NDP would be the Roxanne’s Law which would “penalize anyone who coerced a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will. In against abortion from the NDP, the government decided to stop all abortion funds in its G8 child and maternal health- care initiative for developing countries.

            With all these topics and issues in mind, reopening the debate of abortion is a risky chance to take. To begin with, the flexibility of the border to human life contributes to criminal laws specifically regarding crimes with pregnant woman involved. Most of the time, even though the fetus is not fully grown yet, it would still be considered a “human being” in order for the trial to be fair. Furthermore, it seems like every time this issue was brought up, the anti- abortion supporters would usually “win the day” with either cutting funds or attempting the restrict abortion in some sensible method. Regarding abortion, Canada has already been very considerate to its citizens, opposed to Texas.  Recently in Texas, the Texas’ abortion sonogram bill and Virginia’s abortion bill sonogram bill was passed which enraged most of its citizens. The original Virginia’s abortion bill stated that “doctors are required to perform a sonogram in advance of abortion to determine the gestational age of the fetus” and it became more lenient now. On the other hand, the Texas law required that “Women must have a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and the doctor, must play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus and how the woman the image, unless she choose not to view it. In response to this, the reopening of the topic of abortion has a chance that bills like the Texas and Virginia bill will be introduced, but with a low percentage if being passes. Having side with Conservatives, I think that reopening the debate to abortion would not end this controversial subject but make it worse than before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/26/f-abortion-woodworth-motion-parties.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/25/3763085/texas-abortion-measure-flies-under.html

Same-Sex marriage controversy

Canada is one of few countries in the world to admit same sex marriages to both citizens and foreigners. For this reason, as many as 5000 foreigners are married in Canada each year, a great number of them being same sex couples who, unable to legally marry within their home countries, purposely jump through the loopholes by getting married in countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Recently, a lesbian couple who married in Canada in 2005 is now seeking a divorce. The problem is, their marriage is not legally recognized in the countries they currently reside in- UK and USA, Florida. The UK does not recognize Canadian marriages, and same sex marriages are denied in Florida. The couple has no choice but to come back to Canada for their divorce. Unfortunately for the couple, another obstacle, one which also stands true for many other same-sex couples married in Canada, stops them from getting their divorce- marriage laws in Canada will not grant divorce if a couple has not been in Canada for a full year. Having essentially nowhere to turn for a divorce, the couple, in their submission to the Ontario court, has argued that the current marriage laws are ‘unconstitutional’ and “discriminatory to same-sex couples, who can only get married in select jurisdictions around the world” (CBC news- ‘The Law Behind the Same-Sex Divorce Controversy).

            The Lawyer representing the Federal Justice Department has provided a counterargument on the case. He argues that the women weren’t Canadian citizens, and that their marriage isn’t recognized in their place of residence- asserting that the marriage was not valid to begin with, and therefore cannot be undone. However, if this is this case and the Canadian courts accept this defense, then all same-sex couples who were previously married in Canada because their home countries denied same-sex marriages will have their marriage at risk.

            Fortunately, the government does not seem to be standing by this defense. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has distanced himself from the argument, announcing that he was unaware of its existence and that the federal government will not reopen the same-sex marriage issue. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has also made positive remarks on amending the law so same-sex couples who were married in Canada will also be able to divorce, so that “marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada”. Experts in the field have also examined the Florida couple’s case, and made assertions that their marriage is indeed valid- the couple had given consent to the marriage, and nuptials were legal in the jurisdiction in which they were performed.

            I personally see no reason for the courts to deny the couple their divorce. If the current law, which states that couples must stay in Canada for over a year to be granted divorce, is changed, no great harm will come to the justice system of Canada. Laws are in constant need of revision to fit society’s changing needs, and this is simply another one of the cases where laws made in the past cannot fit recent problems and situations. Allowing the divorce and changing the current law would greatly lessen the hardships and discrimination that members of the homosexual community face. 

Sources: 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/17/gay-marriage-loophole.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/13/f-divorce-non-resident-canada.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/12/justice-minister-looks-to-clarify-law-so-same-sex-marriages-can-be-undone-in-canada/

Two-tiered wage system announced by Tories

A quiet ruling on May 2^nd changed Canada’s labour laws regarding foreign temp-workers. Employers can now pay them 15% less than the average, going against what Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has stood by for years – which temp workers were to be paid “the prevailing wage”.

Temporary workers often come to Canada because of the improved quality of life guaranteed by this country, and an inability to find work elsewhere. This already leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse as they will often accept mistreatment in order to keep their job. The changing of these labour laws only worsens this affect.  There is currently a shortage of skilled labourers in Canada, which is why we welcome these foreign workers with such open arms, admitting 40% more than we did 8 years ago.

Though this primarily targets the agricultural business, foreign temp workers are now found anywhere from the oil rigs, to your local Tim Horton’s, as a result putting them in direct competition with Canadians seeking employment. This ruling is detrimental to everyone but the business workers. Canadian workers will now have a harder time finding a job because employers may look for workarounds and try to hire temp workers, which may be paid 15% less first. And temp workers are getting the short end of the stick in terms of equality and workers’ rights.  Others will point out that because of Canada’s severe labour shortage, this won’t have a noticeable impact on local workers.  For example, Alberta, with a population of 3.8 million, forecasts a need for 607,000 new workers in the next decade, and expects to fall 114,000 short.

As a Canadian, I do not support this ruling.  Even though this will most likely help the economy, through allowing business owners to lessen expenditures and hire more workers, it isn’t right to trade equality rights for monetary gains. We have long been a country that prided ourselves in equal opportunity and fairness. Rulings such as this slowly change the way Canada is shaped, slowly developing a group of 2^nd class workers, who aren’t looked upon equally as others. I am not however against the increasing amounts of foreign workers being admitted into the country.  They help solve our labour shortages, and we in turn provide them with a better life.  But their desperation to come to Canada shouldn’t be taken advantage of, and they deserve equal workers’ rights as Canadian citizens.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1168905--two-tiered-wage-system-announced-by-tories

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2424451.html

What has happened to your group?

After such a promising and  strong start... to paraphrase a polular 60's song...

"Where have all your 'bloggers' gone?
 Long time passing,
Where have all your 'bloggers' gone?
Long time ago.

When will they ever learn,
When will they ever learn...."

Maybe I just can't see their posts?  or comments?

The Tories' two-tiered wage system: reshaping or disfiguring Canada?

 Canada has always prided itself in multiculturalism and cultural diversity; however, under the Tories' newly proposed two-tiered wage system which will target temporary foreign workers, we may no longer claim this identity. 

  Foreign workers are workers who arrive on work permits, and they were originally intended to fill immediate skills and labour shortages in Canada. Despite the fact that they are not citizens, employers still had the obligation to pay them the prevailing wage-- until recently, when the rules changed. Suddenly, employers are allowed to pay these individuals 15% less than the average wage. This creates an agglomeration of different problems, which the government fails to acknowledge.

  Firstly, foreign workers are now even more vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. Currently the program is already severely flawed; workers have no access to unions, no rights to collective bargaining and are often denied basic human rights. There have been cases of abuse, and a report done three years ago recognizes the fact that because the workers are desperate not to lose their jobs, they often tolerate abusive employers and poor working and living conditions. Instead of solving these problems, the government has now decided to lower the pay of these workers, allowing them to face the same atrocious conditions with a decrease in income. Certainly, business leaders are extremely pleased to be able to decrease their expenditures, but should Canada really become another nation that puts the economy before human rights? 

  Furthermore, this plan creates an "us and them" labour market and exposes foreign nationals to even more ostracization and discrimination. There is already a situation where the disgruntled unemployed are accusing immigrants of "stealing their jobs" and citizens looking over their shoulder, afraid that theirs will be ripped away from them. With the new "advantage" and "appeal" foreign workers now have, this paranoia is certainly not unfounded. The number of foreign workers in Canada has grown by 40% in the last six years, and it is expected to continue to grow despite of the new laws; there are always overseas workers who are eager to work regardless of poor conditions. Of course, one can argue that it shouldn't have that great of an effect since these workers are only supposed to fill in "immediate skills and labour shortages". However, this is a myth and the rules have become increasingly relaxed; employers can very well hire skilled workers like electricians and engineers. In fact, last week the government announced that the approval process for these workers can be shortened from the current 12-14 week process to as few as 10 days. Essentially, the labour market for foreign workers extends much further than just low skilled jobs, much to the displeasure of an estimated 2.4 million unemployed citizens in Canada. The wage cuts simply makes it more difficult for Canadians to compete for jobs, and may even bring down the pay scale for all workers, thus potentially weakening Canadian GDP. While one can argue that these workers can be paid less because they don't pay the same taxes as we do, we see that this isn't actually reasonable. We pay taxes because we have benefits in Canada; benefits like health care and education that these workers don't have. It would be unfair to underhandedly "tax" these individuals for services that they don't actually benefit from. Moreover, if we encourage employers to hire more of these workers (who don't pay taxes), it would mean less income for Canadian citizens and therefore less tax revenue for the government. With these detriments, there will undoubtedly be backlash from the community, possibly promoting a sense of discrimination and racism towards foreign nationals. 

  The recent developments are absolutely appalling; we are not only damaging Canada's economic future but as well as its reputation of a multicultural society that upholds the principles of human rights. It is fair to say that Canada may even be going backwards; as The Globe and Mail notes, "Even the Chinese railway workers of the 1800s came with “landed immigrant” status. Emphasizing the benefits of a disposable class of workers is a very recent, and unsavoury, development in our history." Clearly, we are simply promoting a divide in our society, where we categorize foreign workers as second class citizens. No individual in Canada should face exploitation and discrimination, but with this new two-tiered wage system, we are very much opening these doors. The classification of "temporary foreign workers" with different work standards ultimately suggest that they are not working alongside of Canadians, but rather working in opposition against Canadians. This situation was already a problem that we're facing, and what the government is proposing only deepens its severity.

In the short term, cheaper labour will probably benefit employers, but in the long term, it will bring complex problems of slowed economic progress, social unrest, human rights violations and exploitation of vulnerable foreign nationals. 
With this policy, it is difficult for me to say that I'm proud to be a Canadian.

Sources:

 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1168905--two-tiered-wage-system-announced-by-tories

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/changes-to-immigration-policy-could-transform-society/article2420367/

 http://www.caw.ca/en/8812.htm

http://toronto.nooneisillegal.org/node/380

http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/article/720829--guest-worker-abuses-blasted

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120405/dq120405a-eng.htm

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1170177--exploiting-the-already-exploited
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/sawp.shtml

Thoughts on Ontario Brothel Ruling

Prostitution, “The world’s oldest profession” is currently on a conquest to making itself into a legitimate service industry, falling into the same category as restaurants, trade business, or teaching. And with Terri-Jean Bedford apparently leading the charge in Canada, the brothel business has made its way through the highest court in Ontario and has become legalized. But communicating for the purposes of prostitution still remains illegal. However this was only just the battle, while the war between prostitution activists and their opponents (Including the Crown) will continue until the “final showdown” in the Supreme Court of Canada by next fall or early 2013.

            The supporters of the ruling claim that the current criminal law which forced prostitutes to seclusion violated their rights to life, liberty, and security, which may have some validity considering those who work in “dangerous but legal enterprises”. But even if such were the case, it does not in any way prove that prostitution would therefore be acceptable. We still have the “Notwithstanding Clause” that can easily override anything stated within the charter, with the province’s permission of course. After all if a man in Quebec could be forced to put up a French sign instead of an English one despite that it has done literally no harm at all. Why must a certain business that would signal human traffickers, not to mention assist in the practice of gender inequality be an exception?

            Norma Ramos the executive director of CATW (Coalition Against Trafficking in Women) writes in another article on “theglobeandmail.com” that nations who either decriminalize or legalized prostitution create a welcoming environment for human traffickers to conduct their business in the country. There is also an increase in the demand of prostitution as well as the “incidence of sex trafficking it fuels”.

            Also, because girls and women are usually targeted for sexual violence it would indeed be logical to say that prostitution does involve practice of sex discrimination. Especially for the women who are marginalized in racial and ethnic prejudice are easier targets for sexual exploitation. To decriminalize prostitution would apparently worsen the issue even more.

            It’s quite apparent that I am one of those who oppose this ruling. Even though it may be valid that certain parts of the anti-prostitution laws may have violated the charter, but it is all out of good and reasonable intent. It has been quite evident that the dangers that will be inevitably associated with prostitution would do even more harm if this “profession” were allowed to be practiced openly. As a matter of fact, I believe in agreement to Norma Ramos that it ought to be eliminated entirely on the grounds that it would reduce human trafficking and perhaps reduce violence against women (hopefully).