From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michael Zwaagstra

Judging by Manitoba’s growing deficit, math doesn’t appear to be the government’s strong suit. Now the government seems to want all Manitobans to have equally poor math skills.

Last month, the province quietly removed all subject requirements for entry into a Bachelor of Education program. No longer will prospective teachers need to complete a prescribed number of courses in “teachable” subjects; in fact, they won’t even have to take a single math or English course.

This means that a candidate who took a three-year bachelor’s degree in gender studies and then completed a two-year teacher education degree is considered just as qualified to become a teacher as a candidate who completed an honours degree in mathematics, physics, or chemistry. No wonder people are worried.

For example, University of Winnipeg math professor Anna Stokke has long raised the alarm about the declining math skills of Manitoba students. In fact, Stokke played a key role in convincing the previous NDP government to increase the required number of math courses for prospective teachers from one to two in 2015.

Now the current government is moving in the opposite direction by cutting the required math courses from two to zero. I’m no mathematician but that looks like a decrease to me.

Sadly, some education professors are completely on board with this change. Martha Koch, an education professor at the University of Manitoba, publicly claimed that requiring students to complete more undergraduate courses in math “sometimes results in worse teachers in early and middle years mathematics.”

This comment is a prime example of the anti-knowledge bias pervading North American education faculties. The last thing faculties of education want is for teachers to be the primary source of knowledge in the classroom.

That is why we cannot trust education faculties. Having taken many undergraduate and graduate education courses myself, I can safely say that most of them are worse than useless. In fact, you get stupider because of taking them.

Don’t just take my word for it. Ask any teacher how they felt about their Bachelor of Education program. Chances are they will praise their teaching practicum where they worked in real classrooms with real students, but they will dismiss most of their required education courses as useless theories.

I shudder to think about prospective teachers taking undergraduate degrees in narrow and esoteric fields such as gender studies and then completing a Bachelor of Education program with courses that promote all the wrong ideas about how students learn. While those teachers will be ready for social justice activism, they won’t have a foggy clue about how to teach real subjects such as math, science, or history.

The reality is that teachers must know the subjects they teach well. Since there is a high probability that early and middle school teachers will teach math at some point, they should complete at least one or two math courses before they are admitted into a faculty of education.

As for high school teachers, it makes sense to expect them to complete a major and a minor in subjects that are taught in schools. This shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Lowering teacher education standards might get more bodies into school classrooms, but it won’t help raise student achievement.

Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg

Are political parties more valuable than charities?

You’d be hard pressed to find a single Canadian that thinks so, but that’s how they’re treated under today’s tax system.

The way tax credits are handed out in Canada needs to be revamped. The system is broken, both federally and provincially. It’s time to stop giving big tax credits for political donations. Instead, let’s give tax breaks to folks when they donate to charity.

Consider this present-day scenario.

Last year, Sally donated $250 to the Conservative Party of Canada and another $250 to Save the Children. Jim donated $250 to the Ontario Liberals and another $250 to the Make a Wish Foundation.

When tax time came, the federal government let Sally use both her donations to lower her tax bill.

But one donation counted a lot more against Sally’s tax bill than the other. And it’s not the one that you might think.

For the Save the Children donation, Sally’s $250 donation netted a $44.50 credit towards her tax bill. The province added in another $15.90. That means she will get $60.40 back at tax time.

How about her political contribution?

Because it was a federal political party donation, Sally only received a federal tax credit. But the feds will give her back $187.50 when she files her taxes.

In other words, the amount Sally gets back from donating to a political party is three times as much as her donation to charity.

For those paying income tax, the tax credit situation for a $250 donation, both to charities and political parties, is identical at the provincial level.

Jim gets $60.40 back at tax time from his charitable donation and $187.50 from Queen’s Park for his provincial political donation.

That means the money Jim gets back from his provincial political donation, like Sally’s at the federal level, is three times larger than what he gets back for donating to charity.

On what sane planet should both the feds and Queen’s Park be giving out tax credits for political donations so much more generous than tax credits for making donations to charity?

Making a terminally ill child’s wishes come true should be valued more than helping politicians pay for political attack ads.

Canada’s provincial and federal governments should take funds that go toward tax credits for political donations and reallocate them to tax credits for charitable donations. Credits for political donations should be scrapped.

Tax credits exist to try to encourage behaviour. The whole idea behind it is that if you give folks a bit of a financial incentive to make a donation, they’ll be more likely to do so.

That makes sense when it comes to charities. It’s a worthy policy goal to have a tax credit in place to encourage Canadians to make donations to organizations that work to make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

But why should taxpayers be incentivizing donations to political parties? Why encourage Canadians to shell out money that will end up paying for leaflets, lawn signs and attack ads?

Some try to justify the tax credit regime by arguing that because political parties can’t take corporate or union donations, they need help encouraging individuals to make donations.

But ask anyone on the street, and they’ll tell you it’s charitable donations, not political ones, that should be encouraged.

If political parties can’t raise as much money without the tax credit, they should just spend less money. No one is going to shed tears over seeing fewer attack ads on television.

The sole goal of a political party is to get themselves elected. Why should they get credits of up to 75 per cent while charitable donations get trivial treatment?

It’s time to stop treating political parties like charities on steroids. That means putting political donation tax credits on the chopping block. Instead, the same money can and should be used to supersize tax credits for charitable donations.