Broadly speaking the population of Ontario does not believe that the state should pay to perpetuate one or any number or religions.

I strong suggest that SQE or their friends in FI or other do some realistic polling, not a poll that pushes to find their predisposition correct but use professional pollsters to draw up objective questions.

The polling I saw when at OSSTF confirmed by working for Vector after retirement means that people do not want to pay for other peoples religious choices. Since childless people and people with children who have graduated still pay education taxes that is what those who favour public support for religious education are asking.

A very strong majority do not support the continuation of funding to Catholic schools and an even stronger majority do not support extending funding to other religions.

On an everybody or nobody question nobody gets over 70% support.

By a signifigant majority, Ontarians want every nickel of public money to go to one strong secular public school system.

As to religious results one needs to control for class, race, motivation, % of SE % of ESL etc before any conclusions can be drawn.

It will be interesting to see how opinions change in the future as immigrant populations of other faiths increase. 

In the meantime, readers might want to read our study of parents who already choose private schools to see why they did so and what they think about them.  The reasons are surprising in some cases. Our study can be found our our publications page here:  http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/publications/category/C4/

And in just case readers think this study wasn’t scientific or valid, our lead researcher, Dr. Deani Van Pelt, used it as the basis of her Ph.D. thesis. Her much more detailed thesis can be found here:  http://www.redeemer.ca/Media/Website Resources/pdf/rfd/Van Pelt- STORIES OF SECESSION.pdf

It will be interesting to see how opinions change in the future as immigrant populations of other faiths increase. 

I expect this may harden opposition ot extending public funding to religious schools.  The TDSB is projected to have a majority Muslim student population in the next decade or so, and since 9/11 there has been increasing, if sub rosa, concern about the number of immigrants from South Asia, Central Asia and Africa who are Muslim. These families also have a higher than average number of children when they emigrate here. Some of our Central Asian and African Muslim families have 8-12 children, most of whom were born here. A Somali mom told me that in Somalia, the average woman has 15 children, but in Canada that number has dropped to between 6 and 9.

Fears of Al Quada-style madrassas is a real, if seldom openly voiced, thought in many minds.  Even though pollster Michael Adams found that most Canadian Muslims share the same democratic values about the rule of law, the disestablishment of religion and the need for a pluralistic and tolerant society as other Canadians, many non-Muslim Canadians are worried about the implications of a significant rise in the Islamic population.  This concern is one reason for support for “one big secular public school system” in order to defuse sectarian teaching.

The TDSB has had applications for Muslim alternative schools and has rejected them outright.  I think any move to broaden funding for religious schools is thwarted by an exeggerated Islamophobia in some quarters, and a realistic concern in others that such options would interfere with the children of immigrants from fundamentalist Islamic societies being integrated into Canadian culture. The case of Aqsa Parvez comes to mind,as well as the apparent “honour killing” of three girls and their stepmother in Kingston last summer, again allegedly by a father-son duo with maternal complicity.

I’ve even heard Muslim parents express these concerns. They want to keep their religion and cultural practices (their language, dress, food) but most do not want to see a reprise of the extremism they knew in their homelands. They are supporters of public schools because, by and large, our schools are doing a good job of integrating children from various backgrounds and religions, and “Canadianizing” them while giving them room to be themselves and honour their heritage..

We may not be teaching academic skills as well as we should, but we must be doing something right, because the ethnic tensions here are nothing like they are in Europe or the UK—or even in Quebec..

Malkin, sure, I’ll take a look at the Sweet book.  I may be in Doretta’s neighbourhood tomorrow - I could pick it up from her if she’s got it.  Feel free to shoot me an email with details.

Here we go again.

“Broadly speaking the population of Ontario does not believe that the state should pay to perpetuate one or any number or religions.“

No Doug. we are neither speaking broadly, nor is Malkin Dare doing so as she presents us with more facts to prove that the Catholic system IS doing something very different than is the other of our systems. They’re getting results, and are getting them with a full support of parents, staff, administration and yest even politicians who choose Catholic over the public system.

You are in no position to make suggestions to the SQE organization sir. Given your shots taken in your own presentations at your rather rigid website.

Keep up the great work Doretta, Malkin and others.

Good points TDSBNW.  I’m not in agreement to your suggestion that we do as good a job of integrating children from various backgrounds as we think. We may allow them unfettered access to a classroom, teachers and resources in common with other children of other nationalities but when they go home each day they go back to Little Italy, Greektown, or Bloor West Village - to the culture that they identify most with.

I think Doretta makes sense because if the decision-makers within the TDSB don’t eventually give the growing ethic communities the schools they need for their kids they’ll either do it themselves or add to the growing choice out there.

Would you be as willing as you were cheering Dalton and Annie K. in being success and able to make educational choices for their kids, and apply that to the children of other religions?

As I said in another post, I am prepared right now to put the question of funding religious schools on the ballot for a referendum in conjunction with the next provincial election.

A) Are you in favour of continuing to fund the Catholic school system in Ontario, yes or noÉ

B) Are you in favour of extending funding to other religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims or other Christian groups. Yes or no.

This would sure settle the question.

We could add

C) Are you in favour of public funding of other private schools, yes or no.

From all of the public opinion research I have seen we would very quickly have one strong secular public school system.

Would you be as willing as you were cheering Dalton and Annie K. in being success and able to make educational choices for their kids, and apply that to the children of other religions?

Perhaps you typed this in a hurry, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as it stands.

Maybe you could re-state it?

I haven’t expressed any personal opinion on religious schools or their funding.

The achievements of Catholic schools (which I summarized on another thread) are facts which our happy anti-theist seems unaware of. He is reminiscing about the days before full funding, when Catholic schools could send misbehaving kids packing. Now they have to follow the same progressive discipline protocols as public schools.

Who has the ESL students and the poor students and a higher % of SE students public or catholic. This is the critical question, not religion.

I’m not hearing any confidence in a referendum on public funding of private schools whether they are religious or secular.

Please don’t try to make it an individual rights issue, those are in the constitution. I don’t see anything in there to claim any individual right there.

The UN said fund everybody or nobody. The referendum will clear that up in favour of nobody.

“The UN said fund everybody or nobody.“

Doug, wrong again. Here is the UN link on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For education, please not number 3.

“•(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
•(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
•(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.“

As parents we have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. No where does it say, that all types of education needs to be funded.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Not wrong at all Nancy, the UN committee was asked to look specifically at the Ontario case where catholics are funded but not other religions. The UN said this is unfair but could be settled by funding all religions or no religions.

I keep asking about a referendum on this where all Ontario citizens could vote on funding catholic schools, other religious schools and/or other privte schools. I can’t get anyone to respond. Is it because you know in advance that all funding outside one strong, secular, public school system would lose badly in a free referendum to settle the matter for all time? What no faith in democracy?

With what I know of public opinion of course, funding any type of private school, religious or secular would be badly defeated in a vote.

I think you know that as well so what we get is silence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1999/11/05/schools991105.html

You like links Nancy. Your research is slipping.

The UN is fast becoming a useless body and needs to be disbanded.

Yes Mr Sheep, that would be the standard right wing argument because the world body does not agree with his POV. I suspect most people don’t here either.

Doug, it was back in 1999 the article. UN rulings do not have the authority you seem to think they do. It is not a human rights issue, and no where does it state in the Universal human rights, that a country, and in this case a province can be force to provide funding for all religion. Funding is the key word. Last time I check, Ontario is providing an
eduction for all. It may not be we want , by they are meeting the mandate of:

“ Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.“

Ontario as well as the rest of Canada, has met the mandate in the education part of the Universal Human Rights code.

Furthermore, the challenge was brought forward by an individual Ontario citizen. It really does not have legal standing, and as was rightly done, Ontario ignored it.

Do you think I’m stupid? Stop talking down to me it is nauseating. Of course the Waldman decision is not binding. Everybody knew that at the time. It is a moral force alone.

The point was, for anyone who thinks that funding one religion there are 2 ways out. Fund everybody or nobody. Nobody has 72% support, everybody has 28%.

Nothing at all wrong with your post Nancy.  You’ve provided your opinion to counter that of Doug Little’s and very well.

What’s nauseating is Doug’s continuous spin and twist on a forum where he’s a guest despite having his myths shattered and assumptions trumped.

Go back and check all of your own posts Chuck. No value added, just windy rhetoric. Apparently that is ok. At least Nancy contributes as does Jo-Anne, TDSBNW, Malkin and Doretta naturally, and lots of others but not you.

Opinion is valued contribution. Like it or not this is a forum of discussion not some sort of a competition as to who can link the most posts off the internet, because like Wayne said so well it’s where the rubber hits the road in real time that matters and all the experts and spin in the world can’t match real-time experiences which I believe I’ve provided this forum.

Suck it up.

Yes you are right Chuck, people who contribute real knowledge like Nancy, Joanne,TDSBNW, Malkin Doretta etc are valued but so are people who contribute zero like you, John L and Mr Sheep.

That is not your decision to make Mr.Little. Everyone according to SQE is welcome to enter into discussion, you hold no authority here.

I echo Mr. Chuck’s sentiments. Real life experience and real classroom experience from teachers especially is not sitting well with you is it.

Neither is the fact that the parents here are talking circles around you and the best you can do is parrot disconnected talking points.

I guess when the real international evidence points in a direction that undermines the basic position that there is something seriously wrong with Ontario education then we all just fall back on our favourite myths, war stories and anacdotal observations instead.what you see in front of you, whatever you may think of it, is the world’s second best education. By some criteria like post secondary grads it is the world’s very best system. Those who disagree need to point to a better system and prove it. Can it even be further improved. Sure it can but charters vouchers testing and privatization are a complete and total dead end.

“Those who disagree need to point to a better system “

From what I’ve read so far Doug Little the posters here have done that and more. Just because you don’t agree with what they have to say doesn’t make then wrong.

If you remain inflexible in your stance expect to be disappointed when you are proven wrong and you have been. Mrs. Dare has offered continual proof, as have others here that you simply ignore by tossing out a tag line.

Teachers here are speaking directly to the system’s failings that what’s your reply to them?

Your failing is that you’ve entrenched yourself in union arguments that are neither working to promote proven practices or are working to do what’s best for students.

Folks here who know that you will not be moved have made their cases wonderfully.

So Dave, since it has been proven, that country again with a superior system would be where…?

Every profession has malcontents and people to try to elevate themselves by attempting to tear down the system that gives them and their family its livelihood , but the vast majority of teachers are proud of the system and their contribution to it.

So that country with a better system Dave is which one? I can’t hear you?

Everyone, and especially Doug:

I am not David.  The posts under the name David are someone else.  I intend to only use the name Dave on this blog.

“Those who disagree need to point to a better system.“

No.  We don’t.

Those who disagree need to demonstrate that the recommended changes achieve desirable objectives.  A high overall average level of acheivement is a laudable goal.  There are others:  minimizing the discrepency between high and low achievers, minimizing the cost to the taxpayer, minimizing the cost to the individual parent.  Further, there are pockets of very high need in the areas of autism and mental health that are egregiously underserved and that need to be addressed.

We’re better than almost everyone else.  So what?  What matters is what Ontarians as a whole believe they’re getting out of the system.  If people are by and large happy with the system the way it then fine, so be it.  Nothing wrong with SQE promoting alternative views.  That’s what progressives do.

Sounds like you generally agree then Dave that almost nobody has a better education than Canada. Only about 5.7 percent of Ontarians use private schools although a lot more than that could afford it I’m sure. The ministry the boards the unions all do satisfaction surveys and public satisfaction with the system remains high. Yes their will always be small pockets of disappointed parents of children who did not do well for whatever reason being drawn in by ideoligical privatizers but almost nothing changes on that front nor is it likely to because Ontarians strongly reject privatization of education.

Dave, the PISA data lso shows which countries have narrower gaps between high nd low achievers. Canadian gaps are much lower than American gaps. Generally speaking, countries with strong socialist policies have the smallest gaps in achievement. The USA, home of charters, vouchers, testing etc not only has terrible overall results it has the widest gaps between high and low achievers.

The simply refuse to do what is necessary which is to spend far less on education for affluent students and far more on the poor, fix their polarized poverty problem by taxing the rich and creating public sector jobs for the poor etc. This is what mature sophisticated societies do.

Since they are unlikely to change given that Obama is following the failed Bush education policies, they will continue to compete with Lithuania for 19th place in OECD standings.

Doug,
“Dave, the PISA data lso shows which countries have narrower gaps between high nd low achievers. Canadian gaps are much lower than American gaps. Generally speaking, countries with strong socialist policies have the smallest gaps in achievement. The USA, home of charters, vouchers, testing etc not only has terrible overall results it has the widest gaps between high and low achievers. “

Who is the number one in Canada Doug ? According to PISA it is Alberta, the land of choice. Where is Ontario?  In general Canada has a lower gap than United States, but why don’t you check the gaps of the individual provinces?  It seems to me that there is a persistent gap between the low and high achievers.  Alberta has manage to close this gap. I wonder what they are doing differently than Ontario and the other provinces. In fact, many of a child with language difficulties would be better off in Alberta than any other province. But of course that is my opinion, a wee bit bias since I do envy their direction that has been taken with learning disabilities. Imagine that, teaching these children to learn to read well, what a novel concept coming from Alberta.

Alberta has the highest SES rating in Canada as our richest province. BC is second. They have led education for many decades in Canada. They have far fewer ELL students of course but it is the iron law of SES playing itself out again Nancy.

“Every profession has malcontents and people to try to elevate themselves by attempting to tear down the system that gives them and their family its livelihood”

- nonsense. Pure nonsense. That type of divide and conquer with educators may have worked in your day Doug but last I checked the union was accountable to those who pay dues. Do blow off educators who have something to say to you tells a sad story but one most educators are familiar with.

“ but the vast majority of teachers are proud of the system and their contribution to it.“

- it’s not as if there’s a choice but if we had one it would be extremely popular. A little competition in the representative ranks might be just the shake up the old guard need.

Choice for all…not just parents. Individual educators deserve choice too.

Please list for this group the choices your union has available to secondary teachers. Any at all?

The teacher federations are totally democratic from top to bottom. We now even represent teachers in private schools. Choice choice choice. Choice is vastly overrated. We choose candidates for all of our offices. Teachers who do not like the confines of the board have started alternative schools all over the place. We represent them as well.

Doug you biases are showing again.
“Alberta has the highest SES rating in Canada as our richest province. BC is second. They have led education for many decades in Canada. They have far fewer ELL students of course but it is the iron law of SES playing itself out again Nancy.“

SES are relative to each province. Alberta has the second highest real estate costs, with BC being the first. Quite a few are living in trailers, and even here the cost of the trailers are running well pass the $200,000 mark. Higher for the double trailers. Throw in food costs, property tax costs, it evens out in the end. As for rentals,  for a shack $1200 seems to be the norm. It is well known, there have a large population of homeless people, who go to work every day. How does that fit making good dollars, but cannot find a place to live. Their work force for the oil fields, mainly consists of migrant workers from other provinces, living in camps. The migrant workers do not bring their families to the camps, they stay in the other provinces.  It is very relative when looking at provinces and the cost of living in shelter, food and transportation. The ESE factors evens out more or less, from a provincial level. It is not until you look at the different regions of a province, where one will see how SES impacts a region, the municipality, the schools, the hospitals and so forth.

Alberta chose a different route by changing the education system to become more responsive to the needs of their students and parents. One of the structure changes, was to offer choice. Another change how they address the needs of the SE population. The fundamental change, that took place is to address the educational component where programs was set up to improve their reading, writing and numeracy skills. Other provinces, have neglected the educational component to address the cognitive weaknesses of children, that will certainly impact learning, no matter what income level one is at.

You are reading too much propoganda. The # of Alberta kids in charters is insignificant even though they have been around for a long time. The # of kids even going outside their neighbourhoods is also insignificant. No I’m afraid Alberta’s high average income accounts for almost all of their achievement differences over other provinces.

“You are reading too much propoganda. The # of Alberta kids in charters is insignificant even though they have been around for a long time. The # of kids even going outside their neighbourhoods is also insignificant. No I’m afraid Alberta’s high average income accounts for almost all of their achievement differences over other provinces.“

The parents, educators and students of charters in Alberta don’t feel this way about their choices.

The only propoganda here isn’t coming from Nancy.

Nancy check the latest issue of Education Week June 9 2010. Page 5. “Students in high-poverty schools are also less likely to graduate from high school and go to a four-year college. 68 percent of high poverty schools graduate compared to 91 percent in low poverty areas. .... The article goes on and on in this direction”

You can stand on your head and spit wooden nickels, the achievement issue in education has everything to do with SES and very little to do with teaching methods, unions, choice, etc. Wishing it was otherwise does not make it so.

The point of the post is accounting for Alberta achievement rates not whether the tiny group of Alberta parents with kids in choice schools are happy. I think you missed the point.

PISA mentions this as well, but they are suggesting it is access to higher education, the little problem of having the money to do so.  SES factors may account for some, but not all. How much is the question, but it is not 100 % as you keep inferring. If this was the case, why not separate schools based on income alone?  Why not go further and separate the classrooms as well?  I am sure one would have a fun time separating the SE population on income. Provide the case why spend money on low income kids, that are going to dropped out, or become the low achievers?  Why spend any money on the higher income schools, on the low achievers?  Why waste the valuable resources of a school, on students who are not going to go anywhere in the first place?

Why Doug, are you intent to divide people into groups based on SES factors, when all children no matter who they are still required the same type of education, and have the same type of needs as all children?  Why not provide quality education to all, where all become good readers, writers and numeracy?  Why not provide proper funding for schools so all students educational needs are met. I sure would like to see automatic assessments being done on all primary children, and weaknesses are remediated immediately.  As it stands now,  a lot of decisions are being done on subjective data. Why are you so intent in keeping the status-quo, even in the face of what your own child face?  Do you not see how important school quality is and what their responses are to children and their parents?  Don’t you see how you write off children, and how you justify your stance by giving them the choice of a few doors that they can open in the future?  If they were taught to read well, write well and do numeracy well, many many doors would be opened to them.

First of all it is critical to establish SES as the overwhelming, (yes not 100%) but overwhelming reason for achievement problems so that we can focus our resources and our responce to counteract this factor. This will focus the smaller classes, the ELP, the better principals and teachers, the summer programs, the tutorial support where it is needed the most.

Denial that SES is the critical factor in achievement is like denial that smoking causes lung cancer. Is it the only reason? No. Is it the overwhelming reason dwarfing all other reasons? Yes it is.

Hospitals run on a triage principle, the sickest get the most urgent support and the most extensive support. Others are dealt with as resources become aavailable. Education needs to function in the same way.

Poor jurisdictions run way behind rich districts in results. Heavily union Minnesota and Massachtusetts run way ahead of Louisiana, and Mississippi because those latter states are poor.

You watch NL start to really move up the Canadian rankings as they become a richer province in relation to other provinces. Alberta will slip a little as the price of oil goes down and the economy stips if that continues.

All the NL guys working in Fort McMoney will be back in NL to get the jobs there.

Doug said,
“Nancy check the latest issue of Education Week June 9 2010. Page 5. ‘Students in high-poverty schools are also less likely to graduate from high school and go to a four-year college. 68 percent of high poverty schools graduate compared to 91 percent in low poverty areas’. .... The article goes on and on in this direction.
“You can stand on your head and spit wooden nickels, the achievement issue in education has everything to do with SES and very little to do with teaching methods, unions, choice, etc. Wishing it was otherwise does not make it so.“

I don’t think anyone can deny that low SES is a challenge, but the point is not to throw up one’s hands to make it the excuse.  With that kind of defeatest attitude, why bother then?

As TDSBNW has discussed here many times, income is no impediment to learning, more challenging certainly, but not something to give up upon.  TD has also cited, from experience and much research, that the teaching methods have quite a bit to do with how low SES children achieve.

Further from the AP:
“Chicago’s Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men is sending 100% of its first graduating class to college next fall. Just 4% of incoming freshmen were reading at grade level or above when they entered the school in 2006, and many have been affected by poverty and violence. But the school’s culture—strict discipline combined with an emphasis on high achievement and at least one mentor for every student—has helped many make significant changes in their lives.“  Link for full story here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2akJiU2hhYUyy4Y1-EaT_VyK7CgD9GK1STO2

Oh, and SQE has quite a collection of wooden nickels and callouses on the top of our heads from standing on them.  Comes from professionals not paying much attention to experience and research.

“Hospitals run on a triage principle, the sickest get the most urgent support and the most extensive support. Others are dealt with as resources become available. Education needs to function in the same way.“

It is why health costs are increasing, because there is little funding towards preventive illness in the first place. The less urgent cases are told to wait for health services, until they do become urgent enough to get the support. Using this same type of thinking in education, will be much of the same where little is done in preventing reading,writing and numeracy problems in the first place. Having more teachers, better trained, summer programs, tutoring will not change anything, unless the system itself starts to change and in one area in particular, the reading programs and the curriculum, that will prevent problems and stopped the need of funding for summer programs and tutoring.

“You watch NL start to really move up the Canadian rankings as they become a richer province in relation to other provinces. Alberta will slip a little as the price of oil goes down and the economy stips if that continues.

All the NL guys working in Fort McMoney will be back in NL to get the jobs there.“

You should really get out of Toronto, and learn a few things on the reality and not in the dream world you live in. The price of oil is not going to go down any time soon, and I hardly doubt it will every dropped again. Last time I check, Ontario has become a half-not province, and NL is a have-province. But it certainly being a have province, has not generated the jobs, since the unemployment rate is the highest in Canada. If you can get out and live in other places, you soon know how many government policies from federal and provincial governments can impact lives. One can see it in NL as well as one can see it living in other rural communities of Canada.

Things have improved in NL, but I have to credit the provincial policies, that softens the impact of high unemployment and other issues that are impacting NL. Having a higher SES, does not mean in itself, better quality of living, or a raise in achievement rates. It all depends on how the monies is spent, to put a dent into some of the high stats.

“Oh, and SQE has quite a collection of wooden nickels and callouses on the top of our heads from standing on them.  Comes from professionals not paying much attention to experience and research.“

Excellent sentence - a “ZING” for Doretta.

When Toyota came to Woodstock the company execs. toured the boards around the area looking for ones which offered I.B. programs.  Some boards in some communities were only too willing to oblige the execs.

Some communities where boards were not willing to start I.B. programs are seeing private schools go in to their communities.

What do you suppose is driving this? First two guesses don’t count.

Yes the CEO types have a classist snob approach to the community with a “we are better than you.“ approach because they came from either Japan or the USA and don’t understand the quality of Canadian public schools #2 in the world but trying harder.

The general conclusion about all these KIPP or charter schools is that they are highly selective. Also the misbehaving kids are kicked out, there are few to zero SE or ELL kids. Same old story not scaleable. Longer hours the only measurable difference. OK extend PS hours then.

Latest news on Merit Pay started by Arne Duncan in Chicage before he left? Makes no diference.

“highly selective” - not unlike some of those alternative schools in the TDSB funded by the taxpayer.

The more parents have to choose from the better.

No not like TDSB alternatives at all. Public alternatives are expected to take all kids. Some have reached the capacity of their buildings and TDSB has no money foradditions so must select somehow but they do not push low achieving kids out just before big tests or refuseto take SE or ELL kids like KIPP and their friends.

“Latest news on Merit Pay started by Arne Duncan in Chicage before he left? Makes no diference”

Except for the teachers who earn it.

Made no difference in student results so I guess the money was wasted.

Its all about the students Doretta. They didn’t improve under Duncan’s merit Pay plan.

The only “merit pay” I would consider is one that I could decline to accept. It would have a negative effect on my income. After all, I have to spend a lot of after-tax income to buy classroom materials, so I absolutely can’t afford a sudden increase in taxable income, which would probably put me in a higher-tax bracket and would certainly not be of any practical use. Call it “Let’s punish the best teachers” and see how far you get with the plan.

Most people who put together “merit pay” plans have no understanding of what constitute real incentives. It ‘looks good” on paper but would have more negative than positive effects.

KIPP does not “refuse” SE or ELL students any more than the TDSB academically-oriented alternative middle schools do.
There are some similarities:
—both market themselves to “highly motivated students”
—both require an interview where students and parents are made aware of the requirements of the program and the limitations of the program (no specialized SE or ESL services available)
—both aim to prepare students for academically demanding secondary and post-secondary institutions
—both make extensive use of “contracts” for behaviour, work completion, goal setting, etc.
—both have more prospective students than they can admit, so make use of a lottery

Differences include:
—TDSB alternatives get no extra funding: KIPP gets a lot of private money and could not operate their program without it
—TDSB alternatives are under board supervision, but with a lot of room for innovation; KIPP schools belong to the KIPP network but are independent of each other and the school district
—KIPP schools serve mostly poor and minority kids: TDSB alternatives more from the middle class
—KIPP schools provide transportation when needed; TDSB alternatives do not

Some of the allegations our favourite KIPP-basher keeps repeating are not factual. It’s quite clear he has not investigated the issues, he is just repeating slogans from other critics, who also haven’t investigated first-hand.

It’s basically irrelevant here because KIPP is not coming to Canada any time soon. Students, teachers and parents I know who have been involved with our TDSB alternative schools have had a very positive experience; I’m all for increasing those alternative options. However, there is limited demand. It takes a lot of work by parents to make alternative schools successful, and most parents do not have the time, or see a compelling need.

Then they don’t deserve “merit” pay, if they didn’t improve things. Simple.

I’d like to hear from actual teachers what incentives they would like to see for performance as long as student achievement was a main criteria.
As long as the one size fits all methods of remuneration (tenure, length of service, etc) doesn’t seem to be fair for some truly exeptional teachers, what incentive would work?

The recent study of KIPP says it is way under the local schools in SE and ELL learners but wants to be seen as “outcompeting” the local schools. The testemony of former KIPP KULT teachers is starting to pile up all around the country. Low achieving students are shown the door just like private schools do. Yet they use public money.

You cannot insist that you be compared to local schools to show your test results paid for because private foundations pay for 50% more time in school and not play by the same rules.

All of the kids pushed out by KIPP for being SE or “difficult” or behaviour problems end up guess where, in the local schools and then KIPP has the gall to sy “oh look we beat the local school again.“

Apples and oranges as John likes to say.

There was a famous story where an after dinner speaker was lauding the Harvard Biz School as the finest in the world. JK Galbraith was at one table and told his friends, HBS is a fine school no doubt but if you only allow the students with the highest undergrad marks in the country to enter your school and after the first year winnow the group even further by showing the door to the lower achieving group, you can hardly claim full credit when they graduate. He pointed to an overpass and said, “I could march the graduating class under that bridge and say the magic bridge did it.“ It makes just as much sense.

Charters like KIPP are not scaleable. Everybody knows that. Charters across America usually achieve behind the local PS.

Linda Darling-Hammond says that longditudinal studies by University of Chicago on the Chicago schools system says that 3 factors make better teachers.

1) More education
2) More training
3) Experience

The experience one IS interesting though. After 3 years of experience, there was very little gain. Some but not much.

All three are clearly recognized in the teachers pay grid. The old way to recognize nd compensate extra teachers was to make them the department head which had nothing to do with seniority. Thiis tried and true method, accepted by all in the field was wrecked by Mike Harris who slashed the funding available for headships (now called Curriculum Leaders). Granted Dalton has not returned the money.

This one move almost totally destroyed any teachers motivation, beyond the intrinsic, to get ahead or do a better job.

You talk about cutting off the nose…. This was one of the all time stupid moves. Imagine going out of ones way to destroy incentive.

I asked OUTSIDE of the usual criteria for remuneration.  So everyone - good or bad - takes the same professional development, works for 10 years, and bob’s yer uncle.  So what?

TDSBNW can tell you how much “professional development” actually translates into measurable improvement of student achievement. (see Literacy & Numeracy Police, er Secretariat).

Also what happens when teacher is at the top of the grid after 10 years or so?  Where’s the incentive after that?  Hmm, that might mean moving into admin and out of the classroom.

The fct remains, Mike Harris took the biggest single incentive for a teacher to work hard, beyond the kids themself, and destroyed it. All that needs to be done is to return it.

Teachers will tell you:

http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/TopTen.html

A little praise, seldom forthcoming from any admin for any teacher goes a long way.

I’d like to hear from actual teachers what incentives they would like to see for performance as long as student achievement was a main criteria.
As long as the one size fits all methods of remuneration (tenure, length of service, etc) doesn’t seem to be fair for some truly exeptional teachers, what incentive would work?

I posted an answer to your question on another thread a couple of weeks ago. No one replied to it however. Haven’t time to look for it now, will search later.

Uh, I wasn’t asking what bugs teachers, most of the things you list bug almost everybody in pretty much every kind of job. Welcome to the world. (although I do agree with #3 & #2 as we have long written about here) 

I’ll ask the question again. What would be a doable incentive to get teachers to work hard?—-since union rules make that pretty much self-defeating after they reach the top of the grid.

“Charters like KIPP are not scaleable. Everybody knows that. Charters across America usually achieve behind the local PS”

If “everybody knows” then “somebody” was looking at the study the wrong way:

http://educationnext.org/looking-in-the-wrong-place/

U. S. Department of Education Study Measures Impact of Switching Schools, Not Impact of Attending a Charter:

http://educationnext.org/u-s-department-of-education-study-measures-impact-of-switching-schools-not-impact-of-attending-a-charter/

Doretta,

Here’s where I’ll go outside the envelope, and probably make everyone unhappy.  When most people look at incentives, they always think of money.  Many things in this world are worth more than a bigger paycheck.  Other things are important and can be provided for little cost:

1)  Freedom (Ironically, this is free!)  Let me be free to do my job the best way I know how.  Stop hemming me in with useless rules/methods that not only don’t work, but in many cases are counter-productive.  Stop filling my workday with ‘Administrivia’, I am a teacher, not an administrator.  If the students don’t do well, then reign me in, but if they are thriving, then let me alone.  Not only is this incentive cost-free, but it will motivate even the most die-hard unionists.

2) Pay for Upgrading (little cost):  There have been how many calls on how many threads on how many blogs calling for better trained teachers?  I worked in industry for many years.  We were constantly upgrading our skills, and the employer picked up the cost.  I find it ironic that my board’s mission statement includes a commitment to lifelong learning - but they won’t pay for any of it.  Even for their new ‘Summer Institute’, put on by teachers within the board, I have to pay $50 per day to attend - not happening.

3) Respect, from Administration (also free):  Again, on how many blogs have we heard the horror stories about teachers being mistreated, bullied, threatened and even the target of racist remarks by school and board administration.  If you want me to give my best then treat me like I am a valued member of the school and board.

I’m sure TDSBNW and other will come up with a longer list, but I think it’s a good start.

Great list Wayne!  You didn’t make me unhappy.

Freedom is the biggie. That’s where choice for teachers is a good thing.  Funny, it’s the first reason why the charter school idea was started by a teacher.

I agree with you on the upgrading with two caveats—you get reimbursed for the course if 1. it actually is for something that will improve student achievement and 2. you doesn’t move you up the grid. Be careful, though, if the board pays, it becomes a taxable benefit.  Although I do think if you pay, then it is only fair that you should be able to deduct it.

On your number 3, ah if we could only control human nature!  Your last one is, sadly, an issue faced in almost all workplaces.

Thanks, Doretta.

Just a quick response to your reply:

#1)  I was not aware of that - very interesting.

#2)  Grant your caveat 100%

#3)  I agree that we cannot control human nature, but we can control which human is doing the administrating.  If administrators were accountable for their behaviour, and a few of the worst turfed, most of the problems would disappear.  I’ll anticipate your response:  same should hold true for teachers!

I hear you Wayne.

Great list Wayne, almost the same as mine.

Merit pay has been advocated for a century. Nobody has yet come up with something acceptible to both sides.

http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/WhyMerits.html

Doug, here is something else that union brass could be fighting for their members. Other groups have won hard fought battles to be able to deduct work related expenses. From where I am standing, teachers should have this right, as trades people do.

Here is a link on what the CTF is doing, but I found nothing on the provincial teachers’ union, and any movements. “Federal tax policy permits any employee to deduct work-related expenses that are required as a condition of employment. Many teacher organizations are unwilling to formally
acknowledge that such expenditures are required by virtue of employment as a teacher. In any event, for any deduction, teachers must complete and submit a special tax form (T2200) signed by the employer. However, many employers will not sign form T2200, because they don’t believe the expenses are eligible in that their teachers are not “required” to make them.“

http://www.mbteach.org/.../teacher expenditures 2007 _2_.pdf

Not sure if the above link will work. The second one, if not, paste the link in the address bar.

http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://www.mbteach.org/news/teacher expenditures 2007 _2_.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ei=P7QrTKy8JZLhnAfR2r3lCQ&ved=0CD4QFjAE&sig2=FGk1tlySl10CCQcOMg1mVw&q=Can+Canadian+teachers+have+the+right+to+deduct+expenses+for+goods+that+used+in+the+classroom?&usg=AFQjCNFIKnDMbLELIqvD1XjgiCY3LijfrQ

How about unions, making their lives easier, where running pass their quota of paper, is not a big deal as it now?

Here is a good link. Sorry about it.
http://www.mbteach.org/news/teacher expenditures 2007 _2_.pdf

I think my computer is acting up. I decided to go onto the site, for a workable link.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=Teacher+Employment+Expenses&btnG=Google+Search&cof=GL:0;BGC:#FFFFCC;&domains=www.mbteach.org&sitesearch=www.mbteach.org

It is the first article, called Teacher Employment Expenses

Teachers have fought for this year in year out. They are specifically listed in the ICT Act as a group that cannot deduct any work related expenses. They are told, the employer is to supply everything a teacher might need to do their job. What a laugh.

La Lutte Continua

if the board pays, it becomes a taxable benefit.

I don’t think so. The board pays for many teachers to take AQ courses (Reading Part I and II, Mathematics Part I and II, etc.)  Sometimes they pay for others—Sp. Ed., Computers in the Classroom, whatever. When schools become Early Years Literacy Project Schools, for example, many teachers have the option to take one of the Reading courses at board expense.

These are MOE courses, they don’t carry university credit in most cases. But you don’t have to pay tax on taking them.

Sure never paid for me, something new TDSBNW?

Well Doug, that is an excuse. The unions should really work on this one, because there is far too many teachers putting in their own money to buy supplies, and other teaching related materials.  Here is an example. Two teachers decides to coach a hockey team, and a basketball team. Both need equipment. How many schools or boards are willing to provide them their shoes, clothing and other protective gear. If not, why should they not be able to deduct the expenses at income tax time? 

Here is another scenario. Two primary teachers, new to the school, discovers there is very little in learning materials on the wall. What there is, is very old, ratty and outdated. The school says no, the parent council says no, and they submit a request to the board and wait. They get tired of waiting, and purchased they own material, and in part make their own on equipment at home. Now why should they not be entitled to a tax deduction, especially when the board turns them down? 

Actually in my opinion teachers should be entitled to tax deductions to a certain amount, providing they have the receipts to prove it.

I was speaking hypothetically about the taxable benefit.  I do realize that currently this is not how the CCRA (formerly Rev Canada) looks at those courses I imagine because formal tuition is not charged to a teacher for taking them.  Does the board get charged by MOE? 

Also, I do know that the teachers’ federations get considerable provincial funding supposedly for professional development for their members.  A topic which is controversial in itself.  I leave it to TDSBNW to let us know if that PD has any merit.

I do agree that out of pocket expenses for required materials should be deductible.

Nancy, the tewachers have tried this for many years to no avail. RC is determined that we do not get it. Period.

Why would it be controversial ? Teachers unions are professional education organizations full of people who know what and how to deliver PD.

..formal tuition is not charged to a teacher for taking them.  Does the board get charged by MOE?  ..

Of course formal tuition is charged—in the neighbourhood of $800/course. The MOE designs the courses and specifies what is to be taught and how—and it specifies the “philosophy” that must inform the course - but the courses are “delivered” by faculties of education at York, Nipissing and elsewhere.

When the board pays for teachers to take specific courses, it comes out of whatever budget for the special project they have. In TDSB, the Early Years Literacy Project paid for some of this; Model Schools for Inner Cities pays for some.  Now where they get the money for these “projects” (not in funding formula) is a good question. From Special Ed monies perhaps? We do know that the Sp. Ed. funds don’t necessarily go to the Sp. Ed. kids. It woud take a forensic audit to find out where it does go.

As for the sick leave benefits, boards have negotiated those deals because they save the boards money. Teachers are encouraged to “bank” sick days because it is much cheaper for the board to pay them a gratuity for unused sick days at the end of their careers (only a minority of teachers actually bank the required number of days, however—it amounts to 15 years of perfect attendance, something not that commonly achieved) than to pay for supply teachers when teachers are sick. 

The downside of this arrangement is that many teachers do report to work when they are sick as <bleep> and should be home in bed. Respiratory and intestinal viruses spread like wildfire in schools, and young teachers are particularly susceptible. After awhile your immune system builds up and you don’t catch every bug that comes down the pike, but even with rigorous handwashing etc. kids are sneezing and coughing into your face, blowing snot on their hands or sleeves and then touching shared classroom items, and so on.  Probably less an issue at secondary level, but catching infectious illnesses is an occupational hazard in elementary.

the teachers’ federations get considerable provincial funding supposedly for professional development for their members.  A topic which is controversial in itself

“Supposedly?“

It sounds like you’re suggesting they take the money and spend it on junkets to Aruba. Sorry, wrong target—the trustees and admin of various boards are the ones who do that.

As for PD delivered by federations—it comes under one of two categories. The first is PD requested by the membership. This is paid for by the membership and they do not have to be accountable to any but the members. Fair enough.

The other category is PD that is contracted by the boards or the MOE. When this happens, the federations are given the specifics of what is to be covered, what the emphases are, and so on. It is devoid of “union” content.  The federations are not the only providers of MOE-requested PD. Private agencies, such as the Geneva Centre for Autism, also deliver PD at MOE request. They are answerable to the MOE for fulfilling the mandates given. In neither case does the contracted organization make a profit on the deal.

I do agree that out of pocket expenses for required materials should be deductible.

The weasel word here is “required.“  The board will say, No, pencils and art materials are not “required.“ Quality reading materials is not “required.“  reference books are not “required”..

I well remember the middle school where not the classrooms contained no texts, paper, pencil ssharpeners, even adequate numbers of student chairs. A recently graduated teacher had the classroom next to mine. She entered it just before school started, to find nothing but trash-old newspapers, pop bottles. “How can I deliver the curriculum,“ she sobbed. “ What am I going to do?“ She took out a loan for $5000 and bought her own materials. Another teacher told me, “I was lucky—I already had $20 000 of my own materials when I transferred here.I don’t know what I would have done.“  At that school our budget was $50 per year per classroom. Good luck doing Core Knowledge or DI with that.
.

An egregious example is when the MOE began requiring the computerized report card. Teachers who had no interest in computers had to go out and buy computers for themselves (and the needed software, etc., and in some cases, get some training it their use), because no computers were available to teachers at the school. But, they were required to use the computerized report format or face disciplinary action. Computers get cheaper every year, but at the time a second-hand, rebuilt PC would run close to $1000.  That should have been a deductible expense, but it was not.

Well said TDSBNW. John did you get the gratuity argument? John is very down on the gratuity. He would rather pay for substitute teachers I guess.

I’d like to hear from actual teachers what incentives they would like to see for performance as long as student achievement was a main criteria.
As long as the one size fits all methods of remuneration (tenure, length of service, etc) doesn’t seem to be fair for some truly exeptional teachers, what incentive would work?

OK, I found my post where I explained what incentives were likelier to have a positive effect.

It’s the 7th from the bottom, here:
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/highly-distinct-but-not-highly-distinguished/

Nobody responded so I gather it’s not a point of view that elicited any interest

“I do agree that out of pocket expenses for required materials should be deductible.

The weasel word here is “required.“  The board will say, No, pencils and art materials are not “required.“ Quality reading materials is not “required.“  reference books are not “required”..

It is exactly where boards, and the ministry itself puts controls on, the supplies and resources in the classroom. It prevents schools from responding to the on-going changes in the classroom. Teachers are making decisions based on the resources and supplies first, than the needs of the children in the classroom. Or in other words, the needs of the children are dependent on the supplies, materials and other resources of the school.

The unions are as much to be blame, as the boards that are incorporated, who do take full advantage of the tax deductions and write-offs that are entitled to under a corporation entity. Canada Revenue’s rules are not written in stone, and other different types of professions have taken Revenue Canada to court, and won. It is the school boards best interest to keep the status-quo, where teachers are prevented from receiving tax deductions on supplies , other related education courses and equipment/supplies purchased for home that are part of the job. Why isn’t the union leading the charge, to correct this?

Why isn’t the teachers’ unions pushing for change, where their members can truly make decisions on the benefit of all children. Why should a child who may need lots of practice, be prevented from receiving work sheets because the teacher is worried about going over their quota of paper?  Why is their rules in place, to prevent the individual parent in supplying paper to the teacher? Yes, in this corner of the world, buying a package of 500 sheets, and giving it to the teacher to be used for the worksheets is against the rules.

Than there is the other problem found in boards and ministries, that is not often discussed. The purchasing department, is not often discussed. Nor is their any data on boards or the ministries that shows what prices they are paying. I know it is not certainly retail prices, but I do have a lot of questions on their methods and prices that are paid. In my opinion, the purchasing departments need vast improvements, and to have open transparency and accountability of the use of public dollars. I believe there is lots of room to get a bigger bang for the dollar, without the need of putting strict controls on the classroom, teachers and students.

Thanks TDSBNW for clarifiying the course issue.  By ‘supposedly’ I meant that was the PD offered actually meaningful.—just being cheeky.

So if you take Reading 1 for $800 would that move you up the grid?  If so, you get a benefit from taking the course and if you paid for it yourself, then in my opinion, it should be deductible even thought Rev Can may not allow it. If the board paid for it on your behalf and it moved you up the grid, then it would be a taxable benefit.  If it’s not treated that way on your T-4 in that case, then you’d be ahead.

I realize some kids are still counting on their fingers, but I’m with you and would consider pencils and paper, and books, required.  What the heck is the board spending most of its money on?? 

Those spending silos need to make a comback.  If you need to see what boards spend on go to our Sunshine on Schools site:  http://www.sunshineonschools.ca

You can try playing Whack-a-mole all you want but in the end there is not even close to enough money in the system to meet basic needs. Needed repairs are postponed, textbooks tell us Chretian is the PM, tech is canibalized. There is no sense scape goating within the system. We are literally spending billions less than what is needed to have a quality system.

Doug, your solution is to spend more money, without finding out how they spend the money. There is something seriously wrong with the amount of money being spent, and what is actually on the ground, inside the schools. They seems to be lots of money for the special projects, that are questionable to begin with, starting with high-end operating costs before any benefits are felt by the intended targets.  AS TDSBNW states, it will take a forensic audit, to sort it out.

We can investigate and move ahead with funding at the same time. The schools need billions more. Most boards have schools that are falling apart due to lack of maintenance. A few boars around the GTA can’t build schools fast enough. Schools are short of all supplies every year, way behind on technology, etc. Time to get spending some serious cash on the schools. No better place to spend it.