Do we need a Policy Objective Study Act?

[Machjo]

I was researching the Ontario Ministry of Edcucation's second-language teaching policy, and heres' waht I got:

http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18curr.pdf

http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/fsl910curr.pdf

http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/second...fsl1112curr.pdf

If you look at these policy statements of the Ontario Ministry of Education, they include no research-based evidence that their policy is proving successful (just look at Statistics Canada's surveys of French knowledge among Ontarians). We would think as citizens that the government has a duty to inform us not only of its policies and their objectives(which it does already), but also of the research base on which the policy is based, proving the likelyhood of the policy proving successful.

Do you think a law requiring Ministries of Education, or any Ministry for that matter, to make not only their policies and policy objectives available to the public, but also a scientific study of the likelyhood of the policy to attain its objective? One exception might be if the policy is based on a particular moral principle rather than on science, in which case that that moral principle must be made esplicitely clear in th epolicy document.

What are your thought on this?

[Machjo]

I beleive such an Act could force our politicians to become more accountable.

For instance, this would require the Ontario Ministry of Education to study the policy scientifically and report on its real rate of success, and add that to its policy document to be made available to the public on-line.

This would also force politicians to be more honest. This way, when a politician supports a policy based on a certain objective, yet scientific studies show that particular policy to be ineffective in achieving the officially professed objective, the politician is then forced to either modify the policy to fit the objective or the objective to fit the policy. Either way, it forces him to be more honest in his real intentions, and also forces him to ensure that he choose the right policy to achieve his profesed objectives. This thus makes it harder for politicians to keep their real intentions secret while promoting a policy.

[Machjo]

Another possible name for it would be a Policy-Objective Clarification Act.

[Molly]

LOL If you look at recent history, I think you'll find that Mike Harris got the boot for saying almost exactly what you are proposing.

Since McGuinty's house is built on being anything that is not Harris..... and Mcguinty was chosen by the electorate....

I figure you can safely assume that measureable results or clear goals are not a priority.

[Machjo]

LOL If you look at recent history, I think you'll find that Mike Harris got the boot for saying almost exactly what you are proposing.

Since McGuinty's house is built on being anything that is not Harris..... and Mcguinty was chosen by the electorate....

I figure you can safely assume that measureable results or clear goals are not a priority.

Yeah, it really would be a shame to have to analyse a policy either on scientific or moral grounds and then have to include that analysis in an official policy statement made available to the public. God forbid, it might make it harder for politicians to pass new laws without making their real intentions that much more explicit.

[Molly]

Trust me, I share your disgust.

[Oleg Bach]

Policy is the idiots lazy decision making machine...all policy has to be removed and replaced with judgements..goo and sound judgement..running a nation on auto- is a disgrace..and brings about problem mounting on other problems...Policy is just like religion and our traditions are killing us.

[Oleg Bach]

Policy is the idiots lazy decision making machine...all policy has to be removed and replaced with judgements..goo and sound judgement..running a nation on auto- is a disgrace..and brings about problem mounting on other problems...Policy is just like religion and our traditions are killing us. ALSO - studying our judicial system for five solid years I saw and learned one thing...THAT... there is a moral neutrality that is carried like filth by policy..If it is wrong is should be illegal - If it is right it should be legal and policy must be adjusted constantly in order for it to do it's job..Government should be a governor of the human collective - and make that collective thrive in happiness...not the opposite.

[Machjo]

Policy is the idiots lazy decision making machine...all policy has to be removed and replaced with judgements..goo and sound judgement..running a nation on auto- is a disgrace..and brings about problem mounting on other problems...Policy is just like religion and our traditions are killing us.

How do we not have policies?

If I ask the government what its environmental policy is, let's say, it's fine if they say that their policy is one of non-interference with the market, for example. But if they say they don't have a policy that tells me that they really don't know what policy means. Even 'no policy' is a policy.

As far as I'm concerned, a policy statement shoud include at least the policy itself, its objectives, and an analysis of how the policy is to achieve its objectives, along with any studies that might back up the analysis.

When we consider how important educatio is, for an education policy to include but the policy itself and a few flimsy objectives with no analysis of how the policy is to achieve the objectives, never mind any studies to back it up, that's truly shameful. That tells me the Ministry of Education really doedsn't know what it's doing. That is sheer incompetence.

[Machjo]

Of course no policy is neutral, and different people wil have differing opinions as to what policy is right and what policy is wrong.

However, whether we agree with the policy or not, we do have a right to know that the policy's ability to achieve its intended objectives, whether we agree with either or not is a separate issue, is backed up by an analytical study of how its to achieve it. In a democracy, we have a right to that.

If you look at the policy examples above, the policy itself is there, but we see no statistics showing its rate of success, or research showing that it is feasible, etc. Nothing. How can we possibly know if the policy is effective or not if it has no scientific basis for it? I understand that not all policies are motivated by science but on some moral ground. Fine. In that case, replace the scientific analysis of the policy with a phylosophical or other one that backs it up so that we know what the real motive behind thepolicy is.