carepov

Agreed. Starting from December 2008 (opposition coalition pact) right up to the eve of the 2011 election I thought it would be impossible for the CPC to form a majority the way that they were ostracising the Quebecois. The CPC proved us wrong, getting a strong, stable majority with only five seats in Quebec. Why would it be any different in 2015?

You make many excellent points and I respect your ideas (B.), but sometimes your choice in words is below average (C-): the word "only" means "exclusive". Perhaps you should work on your writting.

You seem to be stuck on this "reference to the average". When a teacher tells a parent that Johny should work on "x" - then isn't it implied that his "x" is below average? OK, I must have misunderstood you earlier when you wrote:

The CPC will need to weigh two options: Go with a "damaged" Harper or go with a new leader. IMO, going with a new leader would be suicidal for the CPC in the next election. First of all, it will give the impression to all voters that the scandal was actually a huge scandal and cause even more damage. More importantly, it will mean that the "status quo" option will be taken away from voters. IMO, the "devil we know" vote is huge especially when the economy is in relatively decent shape - look at the Alberta and BC elections where, despite the polls, the "status quo" kicked ass. 2015 Prediction: Harper-led CPC majority (strong and stable), subject to no significant increase in unemployment.

Well since you seem to be defining all assessment and feedback as a "grade" then you are right - we need "grades". You make some very good points, thank you. The ideas that "learning should be fun" and "kids should learn at their own pace/in their own way", "motivation should come from within" are admittedly idealistic and cannot apply to all situations. However, IMO, when educating kids we should keep them in mind and try to stick to these ideals first before jumping into the "carrot and stick" approach. For example, my understanding is that there are a lot of kids, especially young boys, that have trouble reading. Instead of firing off some bribes or threats, I heard of a class that ordered rocking chairs for the boys (they had trouble sitting still) and more interesting content. If a child is interested in bugs but not math (who can blame them!) well there are countless ways to sneak in math into entomology and "trick" them into learning math. Like you said, there are no magic bullets to get kids interested, but we should be firing off a few rounds before pulling out the bribes/threats.

I understand what you are saying, and mostly agree, except that you are using some terms that I do not think are correct: average: a better term would be "normal range". For example "Most babies take their first steps sometime between 9 and 12 months and are walking well by the time they're 14 or 15 months old. Don't worry if your child takes a little longer, though. Some perfectly normal children don't walk until they're 16 or 17 months old." http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestone-walking_6507.bc assigning a grade: I still never heard of babies/toddlers getting graded I strongly disagree that parents need a ranking to understand how their child is doing. Yes, parents need to know what concepts and skills their child need to work on. This is way more useful than a grade. For example, a child can be "above average" in math, but can be weak in their understanding of shapes. This could lead to problems in geometry later on. The more I think about it the more that I like Mighty AC's suggestions about "mastery of concepts". It's like riding a bike. You either get it or you don't. Who cares if you learn at 4 or 9 years old? Who cares how fast you can ride? Most importantly (notwithstanding safety of course), does the child want to learn and is the child having fun learning? Learning is fun and natural (not as you claim "hard work" that lazy humans try to avoid). For some reason, over time, adults make it not fun through their threats, bribes, stress and other roadblocks. Helping kids learn when they are having fun makes education way easier and more effective. Some competition is good but when it is over-done then school/sports /life becomes less fun. It's not fun knowing that you are "below average" year after year. It's also no fun getting told that you are on the "honour roll" your whole life and then realizing that it means jack-shit in the real world.

No, I wouldn't call doctors' tracking development milestones "grading". If anything, this model is more like what Migthy AC was suggesting: you either get a concept / acquire a skill or you don't. There is no grade given for ability to sit up, stand up, walk, realize that hidden objects have not disapeared from existence, talk, walk, toilet train, conservation, etc... Sure it is important to know signs that something may be wrong - but this is not grading. Again, my logic is that we can (and do) assess a child's development without assigning grades.

Of course we always want to evaluate progress and my point was that we do this for babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers without report cards or grades. And we evaluate a child's progress (hopefully) without the child knowing about it or comparing herself to others. Grades, percentiles and rankings are not the only way to evaluate progress and in some many cases are not the best way. Once a child becomes aware of their rankings, I think that there are dangers to labelling children as "below average" in any subject or skill - especially if the child is just taking longer to develop. I also do not see how elementary teachers can be "more scientific in their evaluations" - can you give an example.

Grading, ranking, rewarding, awarding, labelling. I am not arguing that these should be done away with but we should definately think about reducing the time and effort dedicated to these activities and thinking about the potentially harmful side-effects. At the one end of the spectrum, high school, I probably agree with you that grades are necessary for parental involvement and for university entrance. At the other end, surely you agree that toddlers and pre-schoolers should not be graded/ranked on their education/development. (Is it true that half of life's learning is done before the age of 5?) Grades 1-6? I don't think that grades are necessary for parents to know how their child is doing compared to the average. A parent-teacher talk should do the trick. I think that grading/ranking/awarding at this age does more harm than good. What do you think? Junior high? hmmm... I don't know.

I came accross this guy. He seems to have some very good ideas about education and parenting. "Grades don’t prepare children for the “real world” -- unless one has in mind a world where interest in learning and quality of thinking are unimportant. Nor are grades a necessary part of schooling, any more than paddling or taking extended dictation could be described that way." http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/tcag.htm http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm

I would like to see even a single example of a country that implemented a free trade agreement that resulted in their standard of living going down. Pick any country, developed or undeveloped, and any reasonable measure(s) of "standard of living".

Yes. I will beleive it [eliminiation of the deficit] when I see it. That GST cut from 7-5% sure was economically stupid!

Yes you are right, I should be more careful with my words. Increased exports coincide with new free trade agreements. Increased exports are positively correlated to increased wages and other measures of standard of living. These correlations support the theory that free trade agreements increase standards of living. A great example of this relationship is Mexico that joined GATT in 1986 and NAFTA in 1994. Mexican Human Development Data[1] Human development index 1985: 0.755 2003: 0.814 Human development index 1995: 0.782 2003: 0.814 Life expectancy at birth (years) 1975: 62 2005: 75 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 1970: 73 2003: 23 Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 1970: 110 2003: 28 Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%) 1990: 66 2002: 77 Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%) 1990: 80 2002: 91 Population undernourished (% total) 1991: 5 2001: 5 Public expenditure on education (as % of GDP) 1990: 3.6 2000: 5.3 Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 and above) 1990: 87 2003: 90 Children reaching grade 5 (%) 1990: 80 2001: 93 [1] http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm

I strongly disagree from my experience observing 0-6 year-olds. They love "hard work" and if you let them they would "work hard" almost the entire time that they wake up to the time they sleep.

No. I wish it were true but it's not. I forgot to include the word "born" into my question. Don't all todlers ask, what's this, what's that, why, why, why???? Don't all kids in Grades 1-3 love to read, listen to stories, even learn math and science? IMO a key to sucess in life is a love of learning / curiosity and something is happening to smother out this curiosity. When does this happen, why, and how can we prevent it from happening and instead encourage a love of learning?

Income splitting would be such a benefit to me that I would probably put aside all my qualms over Harper and stick a blue sign on my lawn.

Why the negative expectations? (by the way negative expectations are often self-fulfilling prophesies) Aren't all human beings naturally curious and instilled with the love of learning - learning for no other reason than for the sake of learning? At what age do a significant number of kids stop wanting to learn? Stop being curious and creative?

Yes, Canadians have greatly benefitted from free trade with the USA. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/wages http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/disposable-personal-income Yes, I agree.

IMO, there should be very few tariffs or restrictions on trade between countries. There should also be minimal amount of subsidies or "corporate welfare". My understanding is that there is a strong positive correlation between exports and real income per capita - and therefore standard of living. A trade deal is generally successful if exports increase. Greater exports=greater wealth (GDP)=potentially greater inequality. If excessive, inequality within a country can spoil the benefits of increased trade. IMO, inequality should be addressed by domestic policies (taxation, social programs, etc...).

2015 is a long way away. IMO, if the unemployment rate remains low, and especially lower than the US rate, I predict that the CPC, led by Harper, will win another majority. (Much to my chagrin.) 1. As seen in the latest federal and provincial election, in relatively god economic times, Canadians do not want change - they like the status quo. 2. Harper and his entourage have lied and deceived Canadians. "Big deal". This is standard operating procedures since at least 500 years as per Niccolò Machiavelli. 3. On this scandal, Harper and the PMO are guilty of crisis mismanagement. What about all the other crisis’ he managed so well and/or prevented? His "save percentage" is still probably over 90%.

1. Canadian consumers will therefore bennefit by lower prices for imported EU goods. 2. The major reason for the lower duties that Canada pays is that Canada has a trade deficit with the EU. This agreeement will allow Canada to expand exports. 3. Trade is not zero-sum, when done right it is win-win.

I am sceptical, if this were true: Why has the Canadian crime rate and specifically violent crime rate been in decline since 1992? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CanadaViolentCrime.gif http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692-eng.htm#a1 Why is Toronto's violent crime index lower than the Canadian average? And how can you explain the dramatic decreases in violent crime severity from 2009-2012 in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#cite_note-Police-reported_crime_severity_indexes.2C_by_census_metropolitan_area.2C_2011-6

OK, we all agree here, no one has claimed otherwise. I'm not so sure how you get this conclusion, but no it is not automatic. Indeed, you may be correct. Reducing stress does not act against a check against a heart attack in all circumstances. It is probably not as important as a proper diet, exercise, not smoking, heredity, etc... However, all else being equal, a person with less stress is less likely to have a heart attack than someone with high stress. This is true despite that one chain-smoking, fat, hedge-fund managing fat sloth outliving the his twin fit, heath-conscious yoga chi-master. All else being equal, a world with increased economic interdependency and increased trade will be less likely to experience a major war than a world where countries are more isolated. Again, this has nothing to do with Canada and the EU it is a response to Topaz's post on trade agreements around the world.

OK thanks for clarifying. I never did get all the discussion on this point, the word "faith" is used for good reason.

Topaz suggested that more trade deals will mean that we are more vulnerable. I suggested that we will be better off with more globally interdependent economies, a principle reason is that more trade means less war. As you often remind us, a major war is always a high risk. Of course it's not a high risk between Canada and the EU, and of course this trade deal does not reduce the risks of major war. But in general (as per Topaz's comment), more trade means less chance of war, do you disagree?