Letters
Return program to sender!
To The Editor:
The article entitled "Education Changes Aimed at Gifted Children" (April 26) briefly outlined an elementary school program endorsed by the Minister of Education Kelly Lamrock in which certain gifted children (i.e. high achievers) would be eligible to participate in a weekly half hour session of academic enrichment.
In my view, such a program should never be implemented because it serves to isolate a student from his/her peers and it would likely create classroom unease. It is also exemplary of student discrimination. All students should be given an equal opportunity to experience an education, including selected topics of enrichment, and none should be separated from this standard because they are not, allegedly, gifted.
Under the example of the gifted student program, the non-anointed students will have a legitimate right to inquire on what basis restrictions have been made to prevent them from taking advantage of the extra half hour of focused academic attention. It is easy to see that this program could turn out to be a nightmare for any home room teacher.
The notion of a gifted student in itself is a myth because academic advancement at the elementary school level does not portend successful scholastic achievement at the high school, university or post-graduate levels. It is remarkable to me that Grade 1 students in New Brunswick are being pressured needlessly at such an early age to learn multiplication when it serves no discernible advantage to do so.
Forced agendas of teaching in the name of academic progress, especially at an early age, will never produce a brighter student in the long run, but, unfortunately, it could make an unhappy and reluctant one, perhaps forever.
All elementary students should be able to think of a favourite subject they would like to pursue on their own time in the form of a weekly study; and all should be able to derive their own academic enrichment in this manner. Productive study is still the most valuable lesson to be learned at the elementary and high school levels.
I think the gifted student program should be gift wrapped and returned to its sender.
Mark Kenney,
Rexton
Be careful what you wish for
To The Editor:
Daniel Allain, Executive Director of Downtown Moncton Centre-ville Inc. (DMCI), shared his desire for a "destination casino" in his article "Downtown is the best site for a casino" (April 30).
When Allain claimed a downtown casino "would generate the maximum possible impact to the surrounding community," he obviously did not take into account the plight of gaming cities like Detroit and Atlantic City that have been impacted by urban blight, increased crime, bankruptcy, and gambling addiction -- not economic prosperity.
Allain says that the DMCI board firmly believes a casino "will be a catalyst for further development in the downtown area." It may indeed become a catalyst, but quite possibly not for the sort of development Moncton's citizens wish to see.
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report (U.S.) states: "in Atlantic City, and elsewhere, small business owners testified to the loss of their businesses when casinos came to town. As evidence of this impact, few businesses can be found more than a few blocks from the Atlantic City boardwalk. Many of the 'local' businesses remaining are pawnshops, cash-for-gold stores and discount outlets. One witness noted that 'in 1978 (the year the fist casino opened), there were 311 taverns and restaurants in Atlantic City. Nineteen years later, only 66 remained.
Allain said that some people object to a downtown casino on the basis that it would attract "unwanted individuals" to the city (which he assures won't happen). Our greatest concern should be that the casino will attract our local citizens -- parents, husbands, wives, neighbours, co-workers, and even leaders. It is the locals who will be the casino's largest customer base and who will be at greatest risk for developing gambling addictions.
A study conducted by the National Opinion Research Council (U.S.) found that the "availability of a casino within 50 miles (versus 50 to 250 miles) is associated with about double the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers" and that "pathological and problem gamblers are more likely than other gamblers or non-gamblers to have been on welfare, declared bankruptcy, and to have been arrested or incarcerated."
In a survey of nearly 400 Gamblers Anonymous members, 57 per cent admitted to stealing to finance their gambling. Addicts are also at higher risk of suicide.
Local businesses will also suffer as discretionary income once spent on concerts, entertainment, dining, shopping, and even groceries is diverted to casino coffers. In New Mexico the advent of casino gambling brought decreased revenue to 12 of 16 areas of business. In Council Bluffs, Iowa, grocery stores lost 15 per cent of their food sales after a casino opened nearby.
Allain and DMCI may be convinced that the development of a destination casino will be the "catalyst our downtown core needs to invigorate it for many years to come," but I believe that if their wish is granted they will discover, too late, how terribly wrong that notion is.
Sharon Fawcett,
Petitcodiac
Public expects better results
To The Editor:
Education Minister Lamrock has been making disparaging comments about the literacy of New Brunswickers.
According to Lamrock's figure, 87 per cent of our workers can't read well enough to "learn a new skill". He is projecting a bleak image of New Brunswick. Similarly, fellow cabinet minister Mary Schryer stood in the legislature and stated that 88-98 per cent of fifth graders cannot write a sentence in French. Once again, this has no basis in reality.
Minister Lamrock is trying to "legitimize" his new strategy for education. This is not surprising considering that Lamrock's elimination of all early French instruction hinges upon the recommendations of a flawed and biased report. He wasted $180,000 of public money on a forgone conclusion, while he disregarded previous reports written by actual experts. Now, Lamrock is scrambling to justify his changes.
There is not one single teaching expert, or French Second Language expert, who endorses Lamrock's plan. The plan is piecemeal, untested, and based on dodgy research. Why would anyone endorse such a scheme?
We do not want our children to be the lab rats in Lamrock's and Doug Willms' social science experiment. Change for the sake of change is not acceptable.
New Brunswickers are embarrassed by the dysfunction of the government. We expect better results. That is mandatory.
Jennifer Atkinson,
Douglas
More Opinion
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (16)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
Sounds Elitist to me.
How therefore, can this program be not considered streaming and why is this intelligence based streaming ok, while streaming based on language is the cause of all the problems in our education systerm?
To me, this program seems to be a much more dangerous kind of streaming.
Anthony Mohammed, the keynote speaker for District 2 teaching and support staff last week stressed the importance of enrichment for ALL students, but wait, he's an expert, so Lamrock wouldn't be interested in his views.
Interesting that Lamrock himself benefited from many "elitist" activities in high school: level one courses, student government, drama...
Please can we get a minister who has a clue about education, before this one sets us back 50 years!
A sad lesson for your daughter to learn so young: grown-ups lie. Children in grade 1 EFI can form coherent sentences with by October. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Best of luck to you and your daughter.
2010!
2010!