Something really funny, you cannot make this stuff up!

On the Educhatter blog, there is a discussion about Toronto’s Multiple Choice School Initiative TDSB alternative elementary learning options.

Here’s the link to the TDSB’s decision document for offering these alternatives for elementary school.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/boardroom/bd_agenda/uploads/Nov_2_2011/Program_and_School_Services_Committee/111102_Elementary_Alternative_1848.pdf

So, reading the above document, guess what triggered TDSB offering school choice: was it parent demand?

No, it was the self-serving reason that all the schools in which these elementary programs will start were about half empty!

For the record, my opinion is that whatever triggered the change I think the change of offering options, any option, is a good one.

However it is interesting that the system is so self-serving that it only reacts if its existence is thretened. It is not about the students first and foremost it is about keeping the buildings full and the teachers employed.
While the buildings were full, nobody gave a damn!

It’s not like these communities started lacking opportunity overnight or haven’t had a need for these types of programs before. It’s just that it didn’t matter.

The interesting thing to see is where will these students be coming from. Especially in 2 of the schools in which only about half of the students in the cachement area were attending the schools. How about the other half?

So when the shit hits the fan, and one’s survival is threatened then it’s possible to at least try and do something.

Again, whatever the reason, I think choice is a good thing.

More about having options, specifically options for high school.

Since high school will come soon for my son I did quite a bit of research.

Here’s a summary what I found out about high schools in Toronto:

* For the vast majority of high schools, a student can attend a high school only if he lives in the cachement area of that high school.
Yes, on paper there is optional attendance, in reality all the high schools with better programs are closed. 
This is because optional attendance is possible only if the school has extra places.

These have a only few places open for optional attendance each year and according to TDSB policy as applies to high school students they are allocated as follows: first to siblings of students currently attending the school, then to students that went to feeder schools in middle school.

So the few places for optional attendance end up being allocated to the first and perhaps the second category and that’s the end of it.

For reference, a link to TDSB’s policy:
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/ppf/uploads/files/live/98/177.pdf

* Of course, there are the alternative high school programs like IB, technology programs, TOPS, art programs open to any student in TDSB, regardless of where he lives.

I think it is great that these programs exist, however they are rather few for a city the size of Toronto.
(Unless you happen to live right next door to one the traveling time for a student will most likely be more than 1 hour each way.)

One issue with them is that each program has its own selection process, different from one school to another even for the same type of program, and unless parents know at least 2 years in advance what the school is looking for they have no way to prepare.

Moreover the selection processes are non-transparent. They are all subjective to a larger or lesser degree, the schools do not have to offer any explanation for their choice of students and there is no appeal to the school’s decision.

* To top the cake, to my astonishment, by chance I found out that not only the alternative programs - open to every student in TDSB - offer more serious courses.

Enriched and AP courses are offered at other high schools outside alternative programs.
A student cannot enroll in them unless he lives in the cachement area of that school.

This is a gross unfairness of the current system: parents buy their children’s attendance into the high school of choice simply by being able to afford a house in the right area.

If high schools had open enrollment without giving any priority based on where one lives, and instead if there are more students than places set an exam and then select the students based on their performance on the exam, a lot more many students would have the opportunity to attend the high school of their choice even if their parents are not well to do.

It is not clear if People for Education is advocating for alternative schools or opposing them?  Do they want to retain the status quo, where only the wealthy can pay tuition or afford a house in a pricier neighborhood?”

Could it be the beliefs that Kidder holds, that she is bouncing all over the place, because the bottom line, her beliefs regarding segregation along the lines of income, inequality, as well as ability are in direct conflict with her own decisions that she has made of her own children?

On the P4E discussion, “They have found that when school systems offer a combination of choice and specialty schools, school populations have a tendency to become even more segregated along economic lines, and, in some cases, along racial ones – thus the gap between “have” and “have not” schools is widened and greater divisions are created among students. In effect, the schools themselves become a form of streaming.  And that kind of streaming has an effect on the success of the whole system.

To further cement her position: “Doug Willms, Canada Research Chair in Human Development at the University of New Brunswick, says, “...the socioeconomic composition of schools [has] a significant effect on student achievement. When children with lower ability or children from lower socioeconomic groups are concentrated in particular schools or classes, they tend to have much lower performance than when they are in mixed ability classes.  Children from higher socioeconomic groups tend to do well in any setting.”
http://schools-at-the-centre.ning.com/forum/topics/do-specialty-programs-that-require-auditions-create-inequities-in

The one and only response is actually another article supporting choice. and shoots down the Kidder’s position, “Keen students can benefit from ‘selective’ schools”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Keen+students+benefit+from+selective+schools/5935737/story.html#ixzz1j0Qkx77M

On the Save the Arts @ Baythorn, “A huge number of families in York region value an integrated arts approach to education. Arts@Baythorn has been an unmitigated success in delivering this programming for the past 25 years. Anyone from York Region can apply to the program, though there is not enough room for all those who would like to attend. Instead of expanding on the successful Arts@Baythorn model (which costs the board no more than traditional educational models), the YRDSB would like to quietly shut it down.

Baythorn has given so much to our kids. Now it’s time for us to give back. This is OUR board of education, OUR tax dollars, OUR elected representatives. They will not respond unless they know how we feel. Please make sure they know how important this is to you.”
http://savebaythorn.wordpress.com/

Is further evidence, that all parents should have access to choice, and not just children who have parents that have the means to provide for their children. After looking at the Baythorn site, I became a fan, because my child would excel at that kind of school, who would truly appreciate her out of the box thinking, as well as her impressions imitating other people, and her little talent of changing accents from a British one, to an Indian accent to everything in between.

My question is, the people who oppose choice of any kind, do they actually believe that the ability of students is closely associated with income levels? If they do, society is in a lot of trouble, as well as to keep the status-quo and the walls that are erected to keep generations within their own income levels.

hmmm.  If what’s implied is correct, then I would guess that Ms. Kidder truly believes that ‘some of us are more equal than others’.  tsk tsk—these champagne socialists…

See my addendum to the blog.

Welcome to our nightmare Europe. We’ve been around the TDSB Alternative options before, but now that you’ve raised this again, I just this evening watched a bit on Global News about a Toronto School geared to elite athletes…..all within the public system that’s supposed to be so inclusive and cohesive.

Kidder’s like many others who play both sides to their advantage.

Choice is a distraction and a set up for religion and privatization.

It is far more important to concentrate on excellence and equity.

“Choice is a distraction and a set up for religion and privatization.”

I laugh out loud on that one, inferring that choice is a negative but excellence and equity are not. Without choice, there is no excellence or equity ,and there is no exceptions at all.

The public education model stands as a testament for rooting out choice in all things education, at the expense of excellence and equity.

“How to pass with a 24% 
In Ontario, students can re-do the part of the course they failed, instead of repeating the course”
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/09/how-to-pass-with-a-24

Great to see parents rallying to save Baythorn School for the Arts!  As a former York Region Board Trustee (1988-1997), I know what it took to establish specialized programs in the Arts. Prior to the creation of Arts@Baythorn, many Thornhill families with arts-engaged kids sought a transfer of fees to attend the NYBE’s Claude Watson School for the Arts. Over my decade on the Board, I supported a dozen or more such families in seeking a fees transfer to North York. Both Unionville High School and Baythorn were established to meet that demand and give Thornhill families a choice and access to enriched programs.

With the retirement of Superintendent Bill Hogarth ( a former North Yorker), changes are afoot in the YRDSB. Eliminating Baythorn smacks of a return to the old days of “one-size-fits-all” schools north of Steeles. With the TDSB adding six more specialized schools, Toronto will soon have over 70 such alternative programs. Those seeking to kill Arts@Baythorn are in some kind of time warp. It sounds like deja vu, reminiscent of the Sam Chapman and Bob Cressman years. School choice is the wave of the future, not “levelling” initiatives couched in the phoney language of “inclusion.”

Total nonsense. Finland and the excellent systems in Asia are not based on choice but on excellence and equity.

Choice is a distraction.

Finland is based part on choice Doug, starting in grade 10, Otherwise, It is where the education system come to where the students are,autonomy for the teachers to work for the students’ need, and not the interests of the other stakeholders.There is flexibility in the Finland’s system, and it is darn sight better, than the absence of flexibility in Canada, except in the pockets here and there.

China, sure Doug, if one thinks 60 percent of their population are lucky to get a grade 6 education. Or India, where the low-income have banded together to start their own schools, because the public education is so poor, and as well for the high income people, who send their kids to the fancy private schools.

” The focus is for them to successfully complete a basic education syllabus, which is a sort of national curriculum that each local school is free to interpret and accomplish in its own way. At the end of grade 9, 5% of students leave school, but the rest must decide on one of two tracks: Upper Secondary School, which is a college prep program, or Vocational School, which is intended to provide students with the skills and knowledge necessary for obtaining vocational competence. Students are also permitted to spend an extra year at comprehensive school before they must make this decision. A vocational school we toured was the AV Media School at Helsinki City College of Technology. “
http://www.designshare.com/index.php/articles/learning-from-helsinki/

Where there is choice within the education system, there is greater equality as well as increasing the odds for each student to reached their potential.

A Canadian educator who believes in choice, speaking about the public education system. ““You have to have a brutal honesty about how badly you’re doing. So, the only way that you can change Britain is to start embarrassing people with the ugly truth. The ugly truth is the poorest are getting screwed. And guess what? Taxes are raised for all people, not just the middle class.”

Most people in Alberta knew exactly what was wrong with our system (overly influential private sector, too little middle-class buy-in to state schools, selection, streaming etc) – and their solutions are very different from Michael Gove’s.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/04/education-policy-canadian-model

If anything, a potpourri of choice in the public education system, just like the choice in Alberta, as well as the funding and autonomy model at the lower levels.

It is very very difficult to have choice without elitism involved. French Immersion and IB are constantly accused of elitism, so are art programs. People particularly object when these programs are in elementary schools because there is a powerful belief that children should have a “common experience”. There is also a powerful belief in boards that equity is critical and that “choice” exacerbates inequality rather than mitigating it. Many who believe strongly in equity believes “choice” is the opposite of equity. and that equity is a far more critical organizing principle than choice.

Choice is a distraction and ought to be a FAR lower priority than equity. If choice involves MORE separation by class and race it is bad. If it involves more integration of race and class it is good.

Choice is a tail. It should not wag the dog. Where choice polarizes class and race it is evil.

Nonsense again, of course there is choice after grade 10 Nancy, that is just streaming, always problematic but at least the Finns DELAY streaming to a more appropriate level than Canada.

China spends the highest % f its GDP on education of any nation on Earth so they are doing all they can afford to do to improve.

There is no link between choice and equity except a negative link. Alberta choice has absolutely zero to do with Alberta achievement since it PREDATES the choice program. It is mainly demographic, richer province=better results.

Below is one of the studies regarding streaming, international in scope on streaming.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp2348.pdf

The conclusions were mixed, but it did find that streaming are impacted by school design (curriculum, instruction, etc.) and parental backgrounds.  Finland ensures that the ability of students are more or less even at the lower grades, to prevent the closing of future doors at the high school level. As stated in the study, schools that have a unified system in the elementary stage, school design becomes important to raising the ability of each student. Finland does a much better job than Canada, even though each province has a unified system until grade 10. For Canadian students, future doors start to close at the end of grade 3 based on ability of students, school design and the emphasis is only raising the ability of each student to the lower end of their potential.

Parental influence and background will kick in, where parents will try to raise the ability of their children, as well as raising the levels of their children’s potential to re-open the future doors, and/or to ensure the future doors will remain open.

The school design within the unified system, in the Canadian provinces, actively tries to control parental influence and background,  as well as engaging in activities that prevents parents from accessing educational opportunities for their children, based on income. More importantly, making the majority of parents highly dependent on the public education system, to provide the educational opportunities for their children, as one goes down the income ladder.

One of the nastier outcomes for Canadian students, as well as the high schools is dealing with the lower levels of the skills and abilities of students. The no-fail policies, social promotion and other such policies contributes to keep students at the lower levels of their potential and skills, and as a result, students and the high schools, equity is gained at the expense of excellence in reaching the full potential of the individual students.

Choice and equity has a direct relationship with each other, and is dependent on the ability and the skills of the students. Choice allows to raise the ability and skills of the individual students, and in turn allows the equity levels to rise.

Below a link, entitled More on Equity and Equality in Education.

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/05/more-on-equity-and-equality-in-education/

The debate rages on between equity and equality within the education system, where choice is center stage. Parents opt for choice, when they feel that the education system is threatening their children’s’ futures. By limiting choice within the public education system, it prevents all students from reaching their potential, as well as erecting walls according to income, and the other SEC factors.

I lived in Japan for over three years.  They have many private schools.  The public schools have to compete with the private schools, and many public school graduates consider themselves better educated than some of the elite private school graduates.  The reason is that some of the elite private schools have begun sitting on their laurels! 
Singapore was the same (I lived there too)—many private schools to compete with. 
There’s nothing like competition, and we desperately need it here in NA.

Guys, let me reiterate my first post.

TDSB, not the parents, to offer ELEMENTARY school choice and based on the documents it only did so because the schools are half empty.

Finland has almost zero private schools and leads the world. It is quite a bit higher than Japan. Singapore is very high but it is a unique city state. Still its excellent PUBLIC SYSTEM is the source of its success.

Finland proves there is no need for competition to improve schools.

Europe, pointed out that it was the TDSB that offer choice, to solve the problem of half-empty schools, and not the parents, who are prevented by the conditions place on them by the education policies, to work effectively for the best interests of their children.

Choice within the TDSB operates as a lottery and postal codes, rather than the abilities of the students and their individual students needs. For my child, she needed a solid grounding on the foundation of the 3 Rs, and yet as a parent, I was severely limited to work effectively for the best interests of my child and her education needs by the policies and conditions placed by the education system. My child’s academic potential was at risk, as well as her long term future into adulthood, and I had only one choice, which was not a choice at all. Choose between the accepting the conditions imposed by the education policies, or improve her academic potential and her foundation at home, to counteract the policies that were impacting my child’s future.

I chose the latter, rather than leave my child’s education in the hands of the public education system. If choice was present in the education system, and I mean true choice where the education system works only to reach the full potential of each individual student, and where all other interests are secondary to the educational/learning needs of the individual students. It will allow the maximum level of parental influence over their children’s education within a public education system.

Not as it is now, where policies severely curtails parental influence and their actions to provide the best possible advantages for their children and their long-term future.

Choice outside and inside the public education system without severe restrictions and conditions, is the only solution to increase education quality as well as achievement levels. Schools whether private or public, will complete with each other based on how well they can reach the potential of the students.

An example is the Alberta model, that does the best job in reaching the potential of all their students, because the schools are competing for students. A side note, families who have move to Alberta, raved about the education system because future doors that were slammed shut in other provinces, are now open up, where their children have the advantage of a brighter future, than if they remained in their former provinces. Competition, increases the quality of education being received in the public and private schools alike, as well as increasing the parents’ ability to maximized to work for the best interests of their children and their education/learning needs.

Finland does have private schools Doug.

“Schools up to university level are almost exclusively funded and administered by municipalities of Finland (local government). There are few private schools. The founding of a new private comprehensive school requires a political decision by the Council of State. When founded, private schools are given a state grant comparable to that given to a municipal school of the same size. However, even in private schools, the use of tuition fees is strictly prohibited, and selective admission is prohibited, as well: private schools must admit all its pupils on the same basis as the corresponding municipal school. In addition, private schools are required to give their students all the social entitlements that are offered to the students of municipal schools. Because of this, existing private schools are mostly faith-based or Steiner schools, which are comprehensive by definition.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

Most of the private schools are located in the high-rent district Doug, providing education for families to meet the cultural needs of their families, as well as ensuring an emphasis on academics, to meet the qualifications of post-secondary university entry.

As for the Asian states and cities, private tutoring is very much a part of the overall education system, as well as schools providing tutoring after school, in an attempt to slow down the rising influence of private tutoring that is impacting public education and their education policies.

Charter schools are PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

They serve the interest of the public and are paid for by the public.

Public is what serves the interest of the public not what Dougs deems to be public.

Just as graduating high school students who do not have high school skills is REGRESSIVE and not progressive (as per Doug).
The REGRESSIVE current education policies and teaching methods are the main cause of low student achievement.

Did you notice Nancy I said :Finland has ALMOST no private schools. they have zero effect on the public schools and zero effect on the achievement level yet Finland is #1.

There is no role for private schools except the perpetuation of the class system.

I have zero sympathy for people who feel they need religious schools but want the state to pay for them, zero zip nada. For me the faster the world understands that religion is superstition the better.

Asian tutorials of course play a role or Canada would be second to Finland not 3rd behind Korea.

Charter schools are PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

They serve the interest of the public and are paid for by the public.

Public is what serves the interest of the public not what Dougs deems to be public.

Charter schools are half public half private. They accept huge private donations, they are run by private management companies that make profits from them but yet they get public funding, the worst of both worlds.They push out the ESL the SE the truant, the low achievers and then say “look at us we are better” the fact is that on average across the USA even with these tactics they are not better. The charter pushers are starting to panic and are demanding that more and more fly-by-night scam charters be closed because they are dragging the average down and the reputation of charters at the same time.

There is a scandle a day in the American charter world. They are starting to seriously add up. Low achievement is based overwhelmingly on social class and this has been demonstrated 1000X. Mr Europe has nothing to go on except old fashioned opinions.

Show me a nation, a province, a state, a board or even a school where the rich do badly but the poor do much better. I though so. No such place exists.

Of course Doug, as a fervent supporter of the current REGRESSIVE education approach you know the best how other people should live their lives and what they should want for their children!

Choice gives the benefit to parents, including you Doug, to select schools that best suit the cultural and values that are held in high esteem of the family.

For some it might be indeed a school without any faith values, besides the universal values of human rights, and anything goes type of values, that in the end allows discrimination to take place when anything goes type of values discourages faith values of high moral and integrity. Finland’s education system recognizes that faith is an important part of educating a student, as well as the positive values faith can contribute to a school and its students.

Making mockery of a person’s   religion beliefs is being disrespectful, but what is even worse, demanding the person to change their values, or hide their values within a public education system. England and other European countries are paying a very dear price, in their attempts to dismantled the values based on Christian and Judaic faiths, and replaced it with an universal set that implies faith values are all the same around the world. Faith values are not the same, nor are the cultural values the same in any part of the world. Doug of all people should be aware of it, since he is profiting by taking advantage of the cultural values of his private school students, providing an education, honoring the cultural and faith values of the students.

Also Doug, private tutoring plays a major role in Canada’s achievement because the tutoring addresses the foundation and basics that is lacking in the public education system. The only trouble is, there is not enough tutors to address the demand, and results in the tutors naming their price. At the end of the day it is the parents who have the income to spare, as well as the parents who have the ability and skills to help their children at home.  The things that the public education are no longer teaching and in some cases unwilling to teach.

The irony is, the public education system preaches equity and equality, but when it comes to the quality of the education being received, are always willing and able to download the responsibilities to the parents, when people are seeking to raise the quality over and above the levels of the education system.

Yesterday, my 16 year old was offered the opportunity to attend the science portion of the federal program called Encounters. Wonderful opportunity, and it would not have happen if I did not attend to her weak foundation in the 3 Rs, at home. If I had left it up to the public education system, my 16 year old would not have been asked, nor would she have ever been a potential student to be sent to Encounters.

Choice would offer the best of both worlds, as well as improving the overall quality of public schools where there is few if any private educational services. Competition does that, as well as the need for private tutors to address the foundation basics in the 3 Rs. or parents spending hours tutoring their own children on the basics. .

Of course Doug, as a fervent supporter of the current REGRESSIVE education approach you know the best how other people should live their lives and what they should want for their children!

The public education system is a state system. It is not a buffet where you come in order what you want and give the bill to the state any more than hospitals, roads, national defence, police, fire fighters etc are up to the user. The system we get is what the majority wants confirmed every four years in an election. It is not based on individual rights. If the majority does not want you to have it you won’t get it.

The present system is supported by the majority and John Tory found out right quick that there are reforms that the majority will not tolerate such as funding more religious schools.

Nobody is telling anyone to change their values although there are some religious and cultural beliefs and habits intolerable to many Canadians. The majority is simply saying, keep your religious beliefs out of schools or pay for them yourself.

They belong in the church, the temple, the mosque or the synagoge. Not in school.

I was raised in a Christian denomination. We went to church on Sunday, we had Sunday school for the kids as well, We had clubs at the church during the week. That is plenty.

Many people insist on religious education because they know or fear that their views will not stand up to modern critiques and their religion has a lot to account for historically speaking.

Unaccustomed as I am to citing Forbes Magazine, the airport reading of the rich, it seems someone there “gets it”. Will wonders never cease?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/02/28/there-are-no-silver-bullets-in-education-reform/

The Forbes piece is indeed a concise summary.

Thanks Doug.

Like you I am not a Forbes subscriber so it is a bit of a surprise, but
with all the stürm und drang in American education choice over the past few decades have not had
the results their proponents wish

At worst it is a tear at democracy and an example of the “Mathew effect”.