March 3rd, 2013
Summary of “Ontario needs to fix the full-day kindergarten problem it created” The title of this editorial says it all; it was a good idea, but bad execution. The Ontario government’s inadequate planning for full-day kindergarten has created a mess in crowded, urban schools. This article’s purpose is to address the problems that are involved with full-day kindergarten, and a solution that will hopefully fix them. The author expresses that the person to blame is Ottawa-South MPP Dalton McGuinty, who is known as the “education premier.” McGuinty pushed for full-day kindergarten without assuring the funding to build classrooms for all these new students. The government is telling school boards to find low-cost options instead of spending money on expensive construction costs. For some urban schools, with limited space and no room for portables, this expensive construction is the only option. Parents across the GTA who were once excited for full-day kindergarten are now furious that boards may be forced to bus kids to different schools, or sent to off-sites spaces. The best scenario, right now, is to purchase portables so the older students can free up the classrooms. The author states that, “they better fix this. A good start would be to properly fund full-day kindergarten.” The author continues to back up his opinion with statistics saying, “When the program began in 2010, the province promised $1.4 billion in renovation and construction costs for new classrooms. Now, in years four and five of the rollout, boards are told to cut costs just as they begin dealing with schools that need construction dollars.” These urban schools are now struggling to find space for full-day kindergarten, especially now that the Ontario government has told them to spend less money on construction costs.
Summary of “Police cellphones searches threaten privacy” This article expresses the need for one’s privacy even from a higher power. More Canadians than ever are using cellphones as minicomputers that store personal information. Some devices contain bank records, workplace information and important security codes. Although this information should be kept private, the court upheld the right of police who are making an arrest to also make a search of the suspect’s cellphone contents without a warrant, unless protected by a password. The author suggests that the Canadian law is lagging behind public expectations when it comes to privacy rights. He states that, “Cellphones aren’t pockets, purses, or backpacks, which the police have been long allowed to search.” He also continues to support his opinion with past events. He refers to a case involving Kevin Fearon, who was convicted of armed robbery in a 2009 jewelry heist. During a search, police found a cellphone, manipulated the key pad to open it up and found photos of a gun and cash. “None of this was in plain sight,” says the author, “But the appeal court ruled that Fearson’s rights against unreasonable search were not breached because the police have a common law right to conduct a cursory search when they arrest someone.” The author makes a final statement that states, “no one is suggesting that the police shouldn’t be allowed to seize cellphones when they arrest a suspect. The phones may contain evidence of wrongdoing. But that should be for a