sympathy for those less gifted and for the handicapped we reduced the standard required of learners to the level of the less gifted so that they could enjoy success.

Thus we created a system which cheated everyone. We did not help the brightest to become the best, nor did we challenge the less gifted to do their best. We rewarded people who had not been successful in order to make them feel good when a real sense of achievement comes only from achieving. Many people "fell through the cracks'' because we did not challenge them not to fall.

Educators themselves did not fight lowering the standards because seemingly high success made them look good and often enhanced the schools with things like grants for extra-curricular facilities. But educators also lowered the standards in an attempt to provide therapy, replacing parents who were absent from the home as guides and counsellors.

But still the schools received precious little thanks from parents. Many parents were behind the scenes, shirking their responsibilities but urging their children to stand up to teachers and fight for their "rights''. The same parents did not teach their children to respect either teachers or the value of education but they were good at teaching their children to make demands for gratification, enjoyment and certified success no matter what.

The truth is that the students have a right to have a good education available to them but they do not have a right to success without effort, grades they do not earn or to positions they cannot achieve.

Teachers also faced more personal challenges. Students came to school after hours in front of the television sets which had taught them to expect easy, amusing and swift education. Reared on the smooth techniques of Sesame Street and the sensationalism of Oprah, students inevitably found their maths teacher dull, boring, old and not at all like Big Bird. As a result, many teachers who could not sing or chirp no longer saw teaching as a holy and noble calling.

After all, they had been outdistanced by puppets. Thus teachers became content to put in their time, do few of the traditional extras and enjoy their long holidays.

The result was to produce classroom success by taking the easy way, stop demanding that students learn and start keeping them entertained. In that way the student was dumb but happy and did not complain to difficult parents who then made trouble for the teacher and the school. The "powers that be'' were happy because the school results were high and the statistics looked good to politicians who always want to point out how well the students are doing and certainly do not want complaining voters.

Teachers were happy because the low road was less demanding, less controversial and less stressful. Parents were content and quiet and could excuse staying away from all those difficult school meetings because "The Kid'' was doing well.

So what is wrong with that system? It negates schools as institutions of learning. But we bought that system and it seems we are going to buy it again and put it at Prospect.