As it's described in the article, neither side is presenting a compelling case. The government isn't saying what problem it's trying to solve, the teacher's union isn't saying why it's bad (1).
I went through the Ontario school system, and I hated it. Unless it has changed drastically, high school seemed particularly ineffective, being both too broad and aimed at post-secondary university-level education. Of note was the lack of education for skilled workers, which, predictably, there's a shortage of now. I went through the 5 year program, which was particularly awful (decades ago they aligned it with (all?) other provinces and made it 4 years).
Personalized education through technology, at least as a supplement to on-site education, is already here. Ensuring that all children have access to it, by making it government funded, seems like an awful thing to be up and arms about.
(1) They do claim that this will be a problem because of the digital divide, but the gap between poor and rich students (putting it simply) is well known, and growing, so how exactly would this make it worse?
I went through the Ontario school system, and I hated it. Unless it has changed drastically, high school seemed particularly ineffective, being both too broad and aimed at post-secondary university-level education. Of note was the lack of education for skilled workers, which, predictably, there's a shortage of now. I went through the 5 year program, which was particularly awful (decades ago they aligned it with (all?) other provinces and made it 4 years).
Personalized education through technology, at least as a supplement to on-site education, is already here. Ensuring that all children have access to it, by making it government funded, seems like an awful thing to be up and arms about.
(1) They do claim that this will be a problem because of the digital divide, but the gap between poor and rich students (putting it simply) is well known, and growing, so how exactly would this make it worse?