[devonin]

This paper was written for a first year philosophy course in reasoning skills. We were presented with the article named in the introduction, and told to describe its basic argument and to take a position on the issue, and defend it. The argument refers primarily to Canadian schools, but as we've had plenty of crossover in our education discussions in the past, we can easily make it about the basic concepts discussed, and not necessarily the specific instance of its use in Canada.

In the article “Johnny can’t read, and he’s in college” from the Globe and Mail in September of 2005, the author describes what they consider to be a pressing concern in the Canadian education system. The purpose of this paper shall be to set out the basic tenets of the article’s argument, and express my own position on the issue. It will also defend that position against logical and likely criticisms, as well as provide a critical assessment of the arguments presented in the article.

The article claims that an increasingly large number of Canadian University students are entering university with basic if not outright poor skills in reading, writing, and in many cases mathematics. The article goes on to say that this is a result of either “The school system…which would amount to inexcusable ignorance; or the system…shuffling them along anyway, which would be both lazy and dishonest.” (Globe and Mail, pg1) No matter which reasoning is behind the problem, says the author, the problem is being left for universities to deal with, where it does not belong.

The article claims that high marks are required to gain acceptance into a university, yet, in spite of that, the university programs are "bursting at the seams."(Globe and Mail, pg1) At the same time, these students have shown very poor performance on proficiency tests. Some 40% of surveyed professors reported that “not some, most”(Globe and Mail, pg1) of their students demonstrated a lack of the basic skills necessary for university; hence, a direct link can be made in defence of placing the blame squarely on secondary and elementary schools for failing to educate their students properly.

The article goes on to describe the lack of remedial programs in Canadian schools, as compared to the widespread presence of these programs in the United States, where “seventy-six percent of degree-granting institutions offer them.” (Globe and Mail, pg1) and that even schools that -do- have remedial programs for reading and writing (Mine, incidentally had no such programs) tend towards making attendance voluntary, and the concept of remedial help carries such a negative stigma that few students would be willing to realise the benefits to themselves and take part.

It is my opinion that the article is correct in its assertion that it is vitally important to emphasize identification of students with needs, and create mandatory enrolment in remedial programs for those students. The very integrity of a functioning education system rests on its ability to claim that it educates well, not simply well enough.

One area, however, which the article only touches lightly upon but fails to investigate in any real depth, is the issue of marks failing to accurately reflect ability. It is an area that I feel bears a much closer look. Mentioning, “There is little honour in being on the honour roll any more.” (Globe and Mail, pg1) the author of the article implies that the ‘easy marks’ and ‘grade inflation’ resulting from schools looking to boost their image, and make themselves look good is only having students be “set up for failure.” (Globe and Mail, pg1) This is an issue I am very familiar with. With websites like ratemyteacher.com and ratemyprofessor.com specifically carrying a rating for ‘easiness’ and schools being dependant on performance for funding, it’s small wonder that there is motivation to let weaker students slip through with higher marks than they deserve.

The article concludes that the necessary course of action that needs to be taken by schools is that they “need to demand more of their students, and give them the tools to meet the demands.” (Globe and Mail, pg1) I agree wholeheartedly with this course. There needs to be more testing, from an earlier age. The Grade 9 literacy test mentioned in the article is many -many- years too late to be establishing whether someone is literate. Testing needs to happen at key years of development. Testing in grade three, six, eight, and twelve would allow for a greater ability to gauge the progress of students and help catch problems before they become systemic. Additionally, more programs need to be created to make up the lacking skills sooner rather than later.

The logical first objection is that the budgeting required to institute national-level legislation to create programs, testing to see whether people should be admitted into those programs, and staffing those programs might be prohibitive. To this I would say that the government (In Ontario at least) is already setting aside so much money for university-level student loans that is essentially being wasted by students who fail out, or drop out, due to their inability to function at a university level anyway. Sure, the government eventually gets the money back, plus interest, but the only monetary gain is in the comparatively small interest payments, since these students aren’t serving the purpose of the loans, by acquiring a degree that allows them to work in a more specialized, skilled field. Breaking even to allow someone else to waste their time is hardly as good a use for the money as would programs that give students the skills to earn their degree.

It also seems clear to me that there needs to be clearer guidelines for what level of work constitutes which grade. While national standardised testing can prove incredibly difficult to implement, something along those lines would serve to allow higher standards to be set, and met, across the board. It would also allow for definitive standards, to make sure that a teacher isn’t as able to give out ‘an easy grade.’

Higher minimum grades required to pass courses would also help with this problem. If the pass rate were raised from 50% to 60% or even 65% it would be easier to identify students in need of remedial help, as well as motivate students to independently seek out assistance, instead of coasting through with low passes.

Yet another possible method of correcting the problem so aptly discussed in the article would be a segmentation of courses earlier in schooling. It is generally not until high school that a true segmentation of subjects takes place. In earlier years, you are simply in ‘grade X’ and pass or fail the year as a whole. If courses were segmented as in high school from earlier grades, it would help de-stigmatize the concept of being ‘held back’ because instead of being behind a full year, one would only have to repeat subjects in which they were struggling. This would allow for closer attention to students in need of extra help, and obviate the need for costly separate remedial classes, meeting both the requirement for a potential fix of the problem, and answering the most cogent of objections to the program.

While this article may be read to be slightly biased towards the American education system over the Canadian, the author does an excellent job of pointing out precisely what the problems facing our education system are, and why a system similar to the American should be preferred. Further, their proposed solutions to the issue: earlier and stricter testing, remedial programs at all levels of education, and entry and exit testing for secondary and post-secondary schools, are all feasible, and perfectly reasonable ways to help ensure that the Canadian education system continues doing its job properly.