works for me!

Thanks Ms. Dare.  Going back over these results has helped to explain much of what I have seen in the classroom for the past few years.  Some of the poor results noted by EQAO are very evident in the schools today.  Students don’t mind doing work as long as it is quick, easy and ‘painless’.  In fact, they belie the ‘Drill and Kill’ mentality - that’s the part they love.  Ask them to actually think and use their knowledge; ask them to write out proofs; ask them to extend their knowledge and discover new applications on their own - that’s the part they hate.

Ironic that as we move to a greater discovery learning environment, the students themselves are pulling away.  Some outright refuse to engage in these activities.  They are wholly used to plugging in, getting online and searching for 5.4 seconds to get the answer.  Give them a situation where they must work their own way through to the answer they balk.

I am quite aware that it is not popular here Wayne but what you see in front of you is the world’s second best readers with excellent results in math and science as well. Do I think we can do better? Yes I do but that is what ELP, smaller classes, etc are all about.

Wayne, whatever you see in front of you in reading, 194 countries do worse, one does better. The OECD, PISA, TIMMSS is the gold standard and the only valid comparison.

BC and Alberta have always done better than Ontario in education. Less poverty overall and younger upstart nature of the province was given to me at OISE as the explanation back in 1980 when they were also ahead. Quebec? I can’t explan.

Jay Matthews is wrong about almost everything almost al of the time and spends endless column inches in Mea culpas for past columns.

If kids yes have been spoiled rotten by their parents in many cases but that is also becoming universal. They said exactly the same thing in China when I was there recently on education-business.

Doug,

As off target as ever.  Remember, I’m a math teacher.  I also referred to the results as noted by EQAO, I did not read the Matthews article.

Our math results are very good as well Wayne. Nothing really to worry about. the vast majority of us will never use the math we learned beyond the tenth grade and there are well enough students doing excellent work to feed the job slots where math beyond grade 10 is necessary. In fact 3 math should not be compulsory. We have not gained anything over the times when 2 were fine except make some money for the tutors.

You didn’t read the Matthews rticle? You didn’t miss anything. His analysis is always shallow and usually wrong. He starts from the perspective that there is something wrong with the public school system and this, of course leads him to many strange places and contradictions. He is now a little more reluctant to give KIPP a free ride but emains their big booster. Shallow - no regard for the damage in their wake.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MnnQ8VH0lVqNvB34gWN2QVhpGpBhp9vvn1xHYJSyxzZKfnF181Wx!427202863!1380883283?docId=5001373768

I know you will be relived to know we are OK in math.

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/new_96_report.htm

Other one does not translate well. See this one you will be relived to know we are OK.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/24/shocking-news-canada-does-something-important-well/

Seems some people don’t like great news.

Ah, Doug, do we have to go over this again? 

From your posts here and elsewhere I know that you didn’t do well in high school then suddenly ‘blossomed’ at university when you could concentrate on the arts.  However, the rest of the world doesn’t share your downplaying of the importance of math and science.

Here’s a website that ought to warm the cockles of your heart:  http://www.slideshare.net/simchabe/microsoft-and-stem-science-technology-engineering-math

Assuming you won’t listen to what Master Gates has to say, let me give you some highlights:

“Today’s students will need a strong foundation in [Science Technology Engineering and Math] regardless of their post high school plans.”

“The US Department of Labor has projected that by 2014, there will be more than 2 million job openings in STEM fields in the US.  Yet, across the US, student performance on international math and science benchmarks continues to lag behind their peers from other nations.”

Correct me if I’m wrong - but did I not see Canada lagging behind the US in science and math?  Just because math was not important to you, doesn’t mean that it is not important to our students.  You started teaching in 1974, did you not?  That was the year Pong hit the market - the IBM PC did not hit until 1982.  Your university and teacher training predates the microprocessor revolution - and your prejudices are showing.

I don’t know why you are so pedestrian when it comes to the 21st Century, but you are.  You seem to be permanently stuck in first.  Oooppps, sorry, that would be Finland - you’re permanently stuck in second. 

Doug,

You can quote all the articles you want - I know what I see in front of my eyes everyday in math class - that you cannot ignore.

That’s right Wayne we should never look at all the international data that says we are in great shape, we should listen to you and you anecdotal view of classes up in my home town, one of the depressed areas of the province.

For the last time, Doug, if we were as good as you think, then why are 62% of applied level students failing to make the provincial average?  A provincial average, by the way, that many scholars and professors think is way too LOW.  Too bad stats from home are not as meaningful to you as those from abroad.  But why should you start to think now?  You’ve been so successful advancing your theories here the way you’ve been going, why change?

I think if you look closely Wayne you will notice the radical difference in SES between your Applied and Academic students. These kids have been behind for many years. Many are SE kids but not all. All we can do is spend a great deal more money on ELP. Small classes all the way along. More support staff and outside the system we need to eliminate poverty with higher minimum wage more public sector hiring free dentistry eye glasses better housing etc.

Now let’s hear your solution Wayne. Try to find one with a little credibility.

National Picture

In 2003, 52% of Canadians aged 16 years of age and over had literacy scores in the Level 3 category or above. Level 3 is generally considered to be the minimum level of literacy required to function well at work and in daily living. This means that nearly half of Canadians had low levels of literacy.

When broken down by literacy levels, the highest proportion of Canadians had literacy scores in the Level 3 category (35%); the next highest proportion had Level 2 literacy scores (28%).

Wayne,we don`t listen or hear him-we ignore him.
We know you`re right-we see it too.
You have to be in Ontario`s classrooms to believe what you see.
I agree,students can`t do in depth anything…the basics are not in place.

Name one nation other than Finland that is doing better. Constantly moving goal posts on adult literacy that includes English language learners is not helpful. You are being manipulated by people who want to privatize the system in order to make money and far right ideologues who actually believe the private sector booster nonsense.

Un illiteracy rate for Canada is 1 percent one of the highest literacy rates in the world. Our 15 year olds are higher than any nation in the world except those pesky Finns. We CAN do better but boy oh boy will it be expensive.

And Wayne your solution is…?

Wayne - I believe you. I don’t believe Doug Little and his continual spin of facts.

Simple as that.

Doug is making himself more irrelevant to this forum each and every day.

“You can quote all the articles you want - I know what I see in front of my eyes everyday in math class - that you cannot ignore.”

One week, no Mr. Little.  It’s an option worth considering because this is turning into discussion based on his nonsense and myths.

I understand that the SQE group may think he’s aiding their initiatives but take a good look, he’s not.

Thanks, guys, I appreciate it - but it is Doug who has the credibility problem, or worse.

Doug, let me see if I can weave together the strands of your philosophy:

1)  Canada is number 2 in the world.  However, we must spend billions to be number one.
2)  According to your own statistics, the only measure we are number 2 in is reading - but we are going to spend billions to be number 1.
3)  In Science and Math, by your own measurements, Canada ranks in the low to mid teens.  Even behind your hated US system with its charters and vouchers - but we are to ignore that.  Why? Because international experts who have not spent 24 years in an Ontario classroom say we are doing fine?
? ?
?  Blink ?
? ?
?  Blink Blink ?
? ?
What am I worried about?  Your sanity for one!

Almost correct. We are also way ahead of the USA and I adocate spending not only to be first in every catagory but to be so far into first place noone can catch us.

If that is the case, Doug, then why are you arguing with me so vociferously about the state of math and science in our classrooms?  Do you not see the contradiction of those positions?

To be consistent, you need to be supporting my position, not cutting it down.

Wayne. We must begin all debate by telling the truth and the world looks at Canada’s education system through the OECD PISA TIMSS lens. I have also long advocated specialist math teachers starting about grade 2 which use the itinerant style. I also believe that John Mighton Jump Math would really add. What are your solutions. I want Canada 1st in every OECD catagory by a wide margin.

My wife is a retired principal and Ministry Officer in Education. She grew up in Hong Kong and is sharp as a tack in math. She credits math specialist teachers since. Primary but even she maintains that Asian cultures put too much emphasis on calculation and not enough on problem solving. Calculation skills are losing their edge in the age of calculators and spread sheets.

My new tack is to not read any of Doug`s posts.

They are based on myopic view like the rest of MOE so why bother.

I like stories from the trenches and Research conclusions.

JoAnne,

Me too!

Here’s what John Mighton (JUMP) has to say about calculators in “The End of Ignorance” (pp. 54-55).

“It is a serious mistake to think that students who don’t know number facts can get by in mathematics by using a calculator or other aids. Students can certainly perform operations and produce numbers on a calculator, but if they don’t have a sense of numbers, they will not be able to tell if their answers are correct, nor can they develop a talent for solving mathematical problems. To solve problems, students must be able to see patterns in numbers and make estimates and predictions about numbers. A calculator cannot provide those abilities. Trying to do mathematics without knowing basic number facts is like trying to play the piano without knowing where the notes are.”

The kids in Applied are not our supply of math and science and engineering grads. They are all from Academic. RIM pres has said they are in Waterloo to take advantage of the high quality Canadian grads from U of W and other places.

Ms. Dare,

An interesting analogy would be English.  In our technological world, why should we bother to teach spelling and grammar?  After all students have access to a word processor, why bother?

It is interesting that no one would seriously argue such a point - yet when it comes to math, they think that technology will solve everything.  I will agree with Mies van der Rohe “Less is more.”

All of our students need better math skills.  Academic students if they are going to university.  Applied students if they are going to college or the trades.  Locally Developed, just to survive.

Why?

Academic - few departments at university today are requiring less math.

Applied - college same as university above.  Trades?  Students need a facility beyond just simple calculations.  Despite almost four decades of the metric system, all lumber is still being sold in feet and inches.  Pipe diameters are in inches.  Screws, nails, etc are still in inches.  Their knowledge of fractions is atrocious.  Most will argue that one quarter is bigger than one half because 4 is a bigger number than 2.  With no facility in numbers, students are not doing well in the trades.  In fact, that is one of the most common requests we get from the shop teachers - teach them fractions.

Locally Developed - these kids are not going to carry a calculator with them for the rest of their lives.  They need to be able to calculate change, understand what interest is, and how it works, and so on.  They don’t get that from punching buttons on a machine.

Is someone arguing against teaching (and learning) calculation? I missed that post. Of course few people do daily calculation without a calculator but it still needs to be taught. The real world of math however is based on problem solving as business and industry constantly tells the education system. I evaluate Chinese students now for possible entry to Canadian HSs and universities. Calculation skills are excellent. Problem solving not so good.

I’m with you, Wayne.  I’d also add that more/better teaching of math facts might get some of those applied kids into the academic stream.

Doug, calculation skills are very important and how/when and what type to use in a given situation. Take a look on what might be found on a PISA math test.

“Politicians and pundits are using results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests to say our kids are falling behind the rest of the world, so maybe we should get some PISA practice. Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless, a member of the U.S. advisory board to PISA, offered this sample question for 15-year-olds from the mathematics literacy section of the exam:

For a rock concert a rectangular field of size 100m by 50m was reserved for the audience. The concert was completely sold out and the field was full with all the fans standing. Which one of the following is likely to be the best estimate of the total number of people attending the concert?

A. 2000

B. 5000

C. 20000

D. 50000

E. 100000

Most people would opt for 5000, and the answer would be wrong,
“Loveless, an expert on international testing, agrees that the problem was ill-chosen. “I think it would throw kids off,” he said. “The math is rather trivial.” There are other problems with PISA, such as an ideological bias and a tendency to assume cause-and-effect relationships. But the U.S. results on those exams—below average in both math and science literacy—are often cited as a national disgrace.

A key failing of PISA, Loveless said, is that “it does not measure what kids have learned in school.” Why not? Because PISA exams are written by the losing side in a century-old debate over how to teach math. For convenience, call the pro-PISA people progressives and the anti-PISA people traditionalists. Loveless is a traditionalist but appreciates the arguments on both sides. The progressives want to make math instruction more relevant to the real world and emphasize mathematical reasoning more than calculation. The traditionalists say you can’t reason well without mastering the fundamentals. They dislike their approach being dismissed as “shopkeeper math,” Loveless said, “like it was old-fashioned to try to compute anything.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101801884.html

Doug, I object to your stance that after grade 10 math, the vast majority will never make use of it. People do every day, all sizes and types. It becomes quite critical when reading about new policies, new technology, new ways of doing things where numbers are thrown at you. Often the numbers are based on rather complicated math formulas, and where one needs to understand the basic formulas to not only understand, but to determine how it will impact their lives. A present day example is the HST. The policies derived from G8 and G20, are often based on numbers where the average citizen pays for the excesses and mistakes of the few. A closer example to home, is the fine print of banking institutions, credit cards, the multiple ways of mortgage terms, and other financial contracts that makes it extremely difficult to make good decisions, without knowing the basic formulas, the math laws, and a deep understanding of how math is applied today. You see, math, basic arithmetic has not change. Nor has the basic math laws have change. What has change is how math is applied, and what is taught through an ideological stance, and not on the science of learning.

“I think if you look closely Wayne you will notice the radical difference in SES between your Applied and Academic students. These kids have been behind for many years. Many are SE kids but not all. All we can do is spend a great deal more money on ELP. Small classes all the way along. More support staff and outside the system we need to eliminate poverty with higher minimum wage more public sector hiring free dentistry eye glasses better housing etc. “

Doug, your solution is based on ideological and dogma, and not on the science. One can have all the math specialists in schools, but it will not do a bit of good, if the basics are ignored. The outcome will be the same. Using SES factors as a way to improved the lot, science has shown that ELP loses its effect and impact by grade 4. One just have to look at the LD research to show the importance of SES factors are far down the scale, compared to teaching methods, teacher knowledge, and the importance of teaching the basics first before going on to higher learning concepts.

I call it magical thinking. Take care of all the SES factors, and like magic everyone will learn. Here is an article written by an American English professor, and titled - Standards and the Art of Magical Thinking.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/09/33newkirk.h29.html?tkn=USZFddhF5ApxYC93fKNX58crHwi3Hj5dN11S&cmp=clp-edweek

“In either case, the core standards as written are utopian fictions, illusory, magical thinking.”

Wayne - your students and their parents are lucky to have you at the front of their classrooms.

Those who depend on calculator usage are likely the ones graduating with “highest distinction” we’ve heard tell about and it’s a vicious circle of math cop-out as these dinstinct teacher grades impart the knowledge they know and don’t know to the next generation of students.

I agree many applied belong in Academic but only if we did a better job earlier in elementary. The amount of time devoted to math the teaching methods the curriculum etc is all decided by the MOE. Your fight is with them.

Here’s an anecdote:
By the time my eldest reached grade 10, I thought of taking math again in order to help him if need be.  (His father travelled a lot with his job.)  Down to the community college I went to be tested on my own profeciency in order to see which class I would fit into.  The questions were pathetic!  The area and perimeter of a square; adding fractions.  Math my seven-yr-old had been doing in Singapore. It was supposed to be a half hour long, but I was finished in 10 minutes.  I called the dept head the next day and asked him what on earth was this test about.  He explained to me that this was what they found the average Canadian’s ability.  Since then I watch people more closely, and you can see how people can’t figure out the simplest little math tasks.  Mistakes are made all of the time, and when I try to explain the errors, they don’t understand. 
Here’s another.  When back for the summer from Asia, I used to send my son, who was seven,  to the little grocery store.  The clerk commented one day that my son was remarkable because he knew how much money to give the clerk, and also knew how much he should be getting back.  I was amazed and thought she was nuts!  Now I understand why this surprised her…

Here is a story from Texas. Canadian teachers will shake their heads on this one.

“School districts are taking the Texas education commissioner to court today to argue that they have the right to boost failing report card grades to at least a 50.

Many Texas districts have had policies for years that establish minimum grades of 50, 60 or even 70 for assignments and report cards. So if a student failed and earned a zero, his or her grade was automatically brought up to the minimum score.

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, sponsored legislation passed last year intended to put a stop to the practice. It barred districts from setting minimum grade requirements for classroom assignments. Education commissioner Robert Scott told superintendents last fall that it extended to report cards such as six-week grades as well—an opinion the school districts are challenging.”

Further on in the article, ” Some school officials argue that if students are assigned a zero or other low grades, it would be almost impossible to pass their courses even if they show improvement over time. They say that could result in a higher dropout rate.

For example, the suit argues that if a student earns a 30, 74, 74, 73, 75 and 74 on report cards throughout the year, they’d only pass if their 30 was brought up to a 50.

“The bottom line is that we’re trying to do what’s for the benefit of the student,” Henrie said. “You do have situations where the student makes a really low grade and decides to turn things around and work hard. If that average is too low, it’s an impossible situation.”

Now with the numbers of 30, 74, 74, 73, 75, and 74,  the average is 66 %. How does that translate to a student failing?  I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. Can anyone explain this kind of thinking?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/28/36mct_txdistricts.h29.html?tkn=NZZFDit2ZeXsBwc+RrXJvXk2uu/lFUKhfXJR&cmp=clp-edweek

The same thing is happening in Ontario.  I really don’t know if it’s this bad.  It sounds like in Texas, you could spit on a piece of paper, and as long as it has your name on it, your mark could be as high as 70!  How are these children going to handle working in the real world?

I cannot even see students being motivated to learn. Instead of hearing the excuse, why bother trying, I am already failing, we now will hear the excuse, why bother learning, I am going to get a 50 %, no matter what. In my little corner of the world, they still hand out 0 for missed tests, and assignments. They still allow chances, though for missing tests, providing you have an approved excuse reason, such as a medical appointment. For missed assignments, one day pass the due date, 5 % is taken off, after 3 days it is 10 % and after that it is a 0. It certainly gives motivation for students to hand in assignments on time, and provides some lessons when working in the real world.

Nancy and Bev, I hear you.

It would appear that the MOE is listening to Texas, not parents and educators in Ontario.  Here are some excerpts from the new Growing Success document to be implemented by September 2010:

1) Minimum Mark:

“Individual boards will work collaboratively with their school communities to determine the lower
limit of the range of percentage marks below 50 per cent that teachers may record on the report
cards of students in Grades 9 to 12. It is important that a consistent approach is adopted among all
the schools of a board.” (p. 41)

2) Late/Missing Assignments:

“Grades 7 to 12: Individual boards will work collaboratively with their schools and communities to develop policy for dealing with late and missed assignments for evaluation for students in Grades 7
to 12, and board policy will be implemented consistently in all schools in the board. Board policies must align with the policies outlined in the present document.” (p 44)

3) Rational Behind assignments Policies:

“There are strong and often divergent opinions on the issue of how to deal with late and missed
assignments. Many stakeholders, including many parents and students, believe that marks should be
deducted when assignments are late and that a zero should be assigned when a student does not
submit an assignment. These stakeholders are of the opinion that there should be clear boundaries
on student behaviour and known consequences for not submitting assignments for evaluation or for
submitting them late. Proponents of this view believe that unless students face academic consequences for non-performance in school, they will not learn to be accountable to themselves and others and will not be prepared to meet the requirements of employers or of postsecondary educational institutions. They also believe that a lack of consequences for non-performance is unfair to students who meet known requirements, and constitutes an inequitable approach.” (p 45)

Yet on the very next page: “On the other hand, many experts in the field of assessment and evaluation discourage deducting marks or giving zeros for late and missed assignments, arguing that such measures do not make students change their behaviour or help them succeed in the long run. They believe that success is the best way to breed more success, that punitive measures such as deducting marks only serve to discourage students and promote failure, and that it is more appropriate and more productive to focus on preventive measures.” (p 46)

Here is a link to the document:  http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/success.html

Now with the numbers of 30, 74, 74, 73, 75, and 74,  the average is 66 %. How does that translate to a student failing?  I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. Can anyone explain this kind of thinking?

In the U.S., 50 is not a passing grade.  Some jurisdictions have 60 as passing, others 70. So perhaps 66& is failing in this Texas district.

In TDSB at least, it is extremely rare for a middle school student to get a mark below 50. If the teacher gives one (because the student failed everything, or didn’t turn in any work, or whatever) the principal will almost always mark the student up to 50.  The grades are not supposed to be averaged, anyway, but the report card mark is to be representative of the “most recent and consistent level of performance” in rubric levels, i.e. Level 1,2,3 or 4.  Teachers are supposed to treanslate the rubric level into a percent.

Not mathematically sound, but so it goes.

Would it not lead to more kids working the system?  Not putting their best effort in?  Would it not lead to more subjective grading, rather than actual grades on tests/assignments?  I think it would lead to more kids underachieving, since it is part of human nature to take the easiest route. Why climb a mountain, when they is another route to go around the mountain?  As for parents, would it not be hard to determine how well their kids are doing?

For many years we were told in Toronto to raise final failing marks of less than 35 to 35 otherwise the student did not qualify for summer school. Nobody objected much becaise 35 was still terrible but higher than that sadly, not only affects that kid but others around him-her.

Nancy,

You’ve a couple of nails right on the head.  Too bad you weren’t our director.  Hey, they job’s open ...

When I went through teacher’s college, the operative word on marking was objectivity.  Marking systems should be transparent to all.  No more teacher’s pets, no more dogs.

I was quite surprised that when our board rolled out their assessment and evaluation policy about four years ago, they were encouraging teachers to ‘eyeball’ marks.  By that, they meant if a student had a low calculated mark (a failure for example), we were to run our eyes along the marks and if level one (50-59%) seemed to be the predominant mark, then override the marking system and assign a level 1 instead (or, heck level 2 or 3 if the mood struck).

This policy is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

By that, they meant if a student had a low calculated mark (a failure for example), we were to run our eyes along the marks and if level one (50-59%) seemed to be the predominant mark, then override the marking system and assign a level 1 instead (or, heck level 2 or 3 if the mood struck).

Yeah, I think that’s what is meant by “the most recent and consistent level of performance..” 

They want you to “eyeball” it so you don’t add up the marks and divide by the number of items.

This comes from the MOE, it just appears that different boards explain it to their incredulous staff in different ways.

And they call this “authentic”  assessment :   

http://www.pisa.gc.ca/pisa/brochure_e.shtml

What can I say?

Canada even does well on a value basis

http://www.oecd.org/document/0/0,3343,en_2649_34487_34010524_1_1_1_1,00.html

Speaking of math Wayne, Nancy, TDSBSW, this is worth a read

http://teachmath.net/Abuse.html

Wow that constructivist stuff sounds great. Of course along with it, the multiplication tables are memorized after they are discovered.

This guy from Imperial oil thinks our education system is great

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/News/Speeches/N_S_Speech060209.asp

Wow look at HDI for Canada. Adult Literacy and Education are 2 of 4 factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

This article not only points out that the USA is behind because of polarized SES but guess who is listed among the counties with excellent education systems?

http://www.all4ed.org/events/losingedge

Doug, it is ironic where you stand, against all corporations getting themselves involved in public education issues. The Learning Partnership, is one such organization.
“The Learning Partnership (TLP)
Our mission is to champion a strong public education system. We pursue this goal by conducting research and developing policy alternatives, by introducing innovative programs that help children to learn and by maintaining constructive dialogue with government, educators, business and the community about publicly funded education.
Canadian Policy Research Networks
(CPRN)
Our mission is to lead public debate on social and economic issues important to the well-being of Canadians. CPRN’s trademark is its ability
to help policy makers and citizens debate the values, policies, programs and ‘ways of doing’ that will help the country cope with social and economic
change.

Actually, I am quite please that you brought this to our attention. The research that is being conducted is important, but it is actually based on the science, and not some philosophy. Here is the link, and at the top of the page, press resources. Not only do they do research, they actually take the research, and put it in action.
http://www.thelearningpartnership.ca/Page.aspx?pid=191

It is the same type of research, that is lacking in the public education system. The Learning Partnership brings a fresh perspective to public education, especially on issues that are complicated, and can be compounded by using resources poorly or poorly designed programs.  I would say this is a welcomed addition to all, especially for the children.

http://www.thelearningpartnership.ca/Document.Doc?id=157

Now saying the above, it is rich irony that you pointed out the article on the guy from Imperial Oil.
Further down, he states: “Is our education system equal to the task of meeting this immense challenge?

I believe our educators are working hard to teach the knowledge and skills to prepare our young people for success in our changing world, within the framework they are operating.

But the actions of our teachers alone are not sufficient. It will take all of us to ensure that our young people learn what they need to learn in order to succeed in this century.

In addition, we clearly need to objectively examine our own education systems with a view for continuous improvement. Canada’s own “poster-child” public school board is in Edmonton.  This was recently confirmed in a study by William Ouchi of the University of California, Los Angeles, who looked at 220 schools in North America.  Edmonton’s public school board has done remarkably well, and much of its success is due to three factors — public and independent school competition supported by Alberta government grants, school choice in the public system, and school-based budgeting giving principals much more flexibility to manage resources.  Several school systems in North America, including Seattle, New York City, Cincinnati, Houston and British Columbia are now copying the Edmonton model.”

Rich irony, since Alberta is all about choice.

I hate TLP. I have organized boycotts and demonstrations against them. That does not mean that it is not interesting to have a top execc from Imperial oil praise the Canadian public education system and tell us how lucky we are to have it.

Now Doug, there is a report released by the PISA folks, on Canada.
It is called Pathways to Success. Now I have not gone through the whole report in any type of detail, but it does confirm the relationship between reading skills and higher education.

“The results also show that there is a strong association between reading proficiency and educational attainment in longitudinal multivariate analyses, after adjusting for background factors, indicating that strong competencies could overcome effects of disadvantages. Students in the bottom quartile of PISA reading scores were much more likely to drop out of secondary school and less likely to have completed a year beyond grade 12 than those in the top quartile. High achievers were more likely to still be in education at age 21 and also less likely to be in work. If they did work, they were more likely to return to education later. Among men, higher reading and mathematical proficiency had a positive association with
transitions to education and lower proficiency, to work. Among women, lower mathematics proficiency had a negative relationship with transitions to work and low maternal education had a negative relationship as well. Years of schooling, that is higher educational attainment, was the other background characteristic that was consistently associated with higher likelihood of continuing in education and a lower likelihood of transitioning to work or inactivity. Other background characteristic, such as parental income, did not help predict transitions.”

Imagine that, high level of reading proficiency, can overcome ESE factors. Imagine that Doug!

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/20/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_44571668_1_1_1_1,00.html

Of course it can, that is my entire point. We must make better readers out of the poor by lowering their class sizes, training their teachers to a higher level etc. But thanks for acknowledging that SES is a significant barrier. Canada doea a much better job than the USA of narrowing the achievement gap between SES due to our socialist policies.

Doug, there is another interesting study being conducted by the PISA folks. Although, I have not read it in detail, it is trying to make the connection between economic gains and school reform. They have enough data to generate a hypothesis. The gist of it, is that changes and reforms to the education system are extremely difficult because of the politics within the public education system.

It is suggesting that the public education systems of countries for reforms to work, removed the politics out of the equation. There is great concern among the PISA folks, that low reading levels found in countries like Canada and United States have remained high and flat despite reforms. Reforms such as lowering class sizes, more teachers, but no real changes made with reading curriculum and the methods used. This area is being explored and it is in its infancy stage.

I did not acknowledge that SES is a significant barrier. I stated the level of reading proficiency can overcome SES factors. Of course there is SES factors, but there is bias factors within schools that prevents reform in reading curriculum. Balanced literacy and other whole language methods, are based on philosophy and not on any science.  Teach all students to read well , the schools will end up with high achievers, no matter what the SES factors are.  But than again in your world Doug, magical thinking is your preferred method when it comes to education.  One example is increased funding will lead to higher achievement in literacy, by increasing the amount of teachers. It is how funding is spent, not the amount of it. Somehow, it is the students who suffer at the end of the day.

Because of the politics, there IS a reason for bad curricula and teaching methods:  more teachers are hired because of demand for smaller class sizes.  Despite what is said about no more staff for SE, it is definately to the advantage of all educrats, from the MOE right down to the unions to be supportive of producing bad curricula and teaching methods.
PISA’s hypothesis is right, and it’ll be interesting when they actually publish their findings.

The demand for smaller classes comes overwhelmingly from parents. Do teachers contribute to that environment? Of course. Class sizes are now set by the province not negotiated at the bargaining table.

What Mike Harris did not understand is that this just shifts federation priorities from negotiations to politics. Teachers will work very hard and spend the legal limit to ensure that Tim Hudak is not the next premier.

And we witness another attempt by Doug to politicize this discussion yet again. Students? What students? Small class size is as much of a boondoggle as the ELP is shaping up to become.  Just the union doing its job keeping those member numbers up.

My apologies to Bev and Nancy who made their case very well - the political spin is just not called for.

What Mr Sheep is trying to say is the advocacy of smaller classes and the ELP is political but opposition to them is not political. You can’t be serious.

Let me hear this clearly, Bev and Nancy.

You are saying that teachers and possibly the MOE are in kahoots to use teching methods that they know won’t work on purpose in order to generate more special ed in order to have bigger empires and greater revenue? Of course you both know how crazy that sounds right?

Not the teachers Doug. I am sure they are scratching their heads over the changes in curriculum and cuts to education. Much like the teachers in BC. As some are saying, cuts are taking place because of the over-runs in the Olympics and the province was left holding the bill. Why doesn’t the union brass go to bat and go after the obvious wrong approach to reading curriculum and how it impacts the children. By high school, there sure would not be too much of a problem picking out the weak readers, writers and numeracy weaknesses. Not being able to read well, impacts all subjects, not just English and math. In the elementary, by grade 4 , there should be lots to pick from.

You mention in this post or another post on the kids of bad behaviour and that public schools must take them. Here too, there is a large percentage of parents complaining the schools do not do enough to take care of the bad behaviour. In fact in my opinion the bad kids are not being handle well by the public schools, because they get too many breaks. Meanwhile, the other kids who become the victims, do not get any justice coming from the school. If there is one topic most parents agree on, it is the bullying issue at the public schools. The parents who don’t, are more than likely their kids who are doing the bullying.

As for ministries being in kahoots, I am beginning to think this is the case, if you follow the money, and how it is spent. Even the old classics are not recommended reading material. Not political correct, as their reason. As a youngster we sure learn some fine life lessons in the old classics, that still remain true today. Even in my day, it was an opportunity for the teacher to talk about issues that impact civil society.

It is about time to give the operations of the school back to the school, and stop all the micro-managing that is being done, unto the teachers, the kids, and most of all the parents. Everyone pays taxes, and why shouldn’t parents have a major say in how the local schools operate, and what material to use.

When Ontario called together the major parent’s groups they said, “we don’t want control of the schools.”

Second Nancy, parents are every bit as divided as the general public between conservative parents Liberal parents and Socialist parents. You talk as if there is a parent’s view where none exists.

Your conspiracy theories are starting to make you look paranoid. Think about that.

Bad behavour comes from the home not the school. It is easy to tell the school to control bad behavoiour but the message the teachers have been getting for years is, never touv
ch the child, never raise your voice to the child, never say anything that might upset the child, don’t keep the child in after school, recess, etc but discipline them. Ya right.

What parents’  groups?  Which ones were asked?  And by whom?  So bad behaviour comes from home eh?  I have lost track of the number of times, I had to straighten out behaviour that originated from school?  Kids are misbehaving at school, because of the discipline policies that are in place. Of course schools cannot do much, with filling out the paper work, etc. because the decision to suspense for more than one day, rests at the board level. What doesn’t help is the uneven application of the policy, where some students get away with more than others. You have no idea, how easy it is to set up children who have LD, in the middle school ages. One day, a girl claimed my kid bit her on the arm.It was a good thing, she was somewhere else with teachers about, to prove that it was the girl who bit her own arm. Also good, that it was not a big school, where these kinds of things are not apt to be picked up as quickly as in small schools.  Why do you think parents are fed up and suing the school and the board in small claims court? 

I don’t know about Ontario, detentions are still handed out, including after school ones. As well they have another method in my community, called community service or go to court. They rather work for the mayor, who is a teacher than go to court. All parents have picked community service instead of court. It seems to be working. Of course the RCMP helps out a lot, by getting in the faces of the trouble makers. This year, a cop car goes pass my place at least 4 times a day as well as in other parts of town, and it certainly helps when cops are seen, and makes any kid think twice of doing something bad.

All of the major parent’s groups around the province Home and School, catholic parents association P4E and many others. They didn’t want the power/
Bad behaviour comes from the home.

Parents demanded that nobody be able to effectively discipline any body and then said what happened to discipline. The message you can discipline every kid except my kid.

“When Ontario called together the major parent’s groups they said, “we don’t want control of the schools.“

What a load of horsefeathers.

The question of school control was never raised by any government taskforces.  Never.

Having been in attendance on more than a few occasions with some of the folks here too if I recall, it was People for Education (hardly a major parent group because they don’t represent parents - never did),
who said they didn’t want to control the schools when they rejected the notion of school councils. That was in the day when Kidder and company worried that school councils would kill school boards.

I also seem to recall that some “major” parent groups were very critical of the gov’t giving money to school councils, saying that the money should go to the kids in the classroom. Remember that Doug?

My how times have changed.

I do believe that the Catholic system tends not to blame parents or the home situation. In fact it is understood that the school reflect the home and not the other way around.  It recognizes that parents are a child’s first teacher and give parents way more respect for their role. Perhaps that’s why the Catholic school councils have done much better at evolving and being looked upon as true partners in their system.

Unlike the public system which, casts blame at parents whenever it jives with their agenda.

The minister at the time told me directly, we were prepared to offer much more power to the parents but every major parent’s group turned it down.

How in the world could parent groups, whatever that means,  have control of schools when they’d have all sorts of organizations telling them what they could or couldn’t do? 

Could they hire a principal?  Fire a teacher? Change workloads?  Offer merit pay?  Allocate the budget?

not true Doug. It was one parent group that fought school councils from the very beginning, until they realized they could use them to forward their agenda and yours. Cozy.

Not true it was many groups led by one group.

It’s true that many parents, even activist-type paretns, don’t want “power” or “control.”

A good example is school council funds. My old school council had the school office administrator do all their banking, bookkeeping, even keep their funds in the school bank account. A new principal questioned this practice—why didn’t the council have its own bank account? Should the parents not be depositing or withdrawing their money themselves, not using the school secretary to do it?  She thought the parents should take repsonsibility for their own initiatives, projects, and that this was a key element in modeling for their children that we are in charge of our own destinies.

I transferred, so don’t know how that worked out, but was surprised to learn the parents did not want control over their own money. There were some very involved parents in that group.

First most parents are “generally” satisfied with the system largely as it is.

Second, those parents who want change in the system are much more often found to the left of the system than the right. The vast network of alternative schools in TDSB hold a view that the system is not nearly “Dewey enough” for them.

There is some total miscalculation that “parent power” translates into demands for traditional models. It does not. Parents are far more demanding of smaller classes and the ELP than charters of vouchers. There is almost no demand for that. Parent power is positioned as an alternative to teacher power. All the polling and Focus groups I observed for OSSTF showed parents and teachers views of reform were congruent and also congruent with federation priorities.

Doretta,Mr.Little is out of control-the above posting is slander!

Whole language injures children-

Parents have 3 kids,jobs and a mortgage and they want to trust their system and the system is broken.And,not just a little bit.

Go onto Annie Kidder`s site-we beg you!

Out of control Jo-anne? Reread your own post when you calm down.I’m sure your own words are embarrasing to you now.

I’m sure you can give your opinion on the public view of education. I happen to access to all of the polling and focus group opinion. That is why I challenge people here to demand a referendum on for example public support of private schools or even public support of catholic schools. All of these concepts are deeply unpopular. 

This is a simple restating of the situation across Ontario and Canada. Slander is a willful telling of untruths to damage a reputation. Honestly held opinions do not qualify as slander or libel.

Jo Anne check the TDSBNW post on parents. This is typical of parents councils across Ontario.

To TDSBNW and others regarding bank accounts.
I followed Jo-Anne and went on P4E site. One of the topics, is bank accounts. Apparently their is a lot of confusion.

The third post is of interest, and it sure leads to a conclusion that the ministry, and boards certainly do not want parent councils to have their own bank account, deciding on how they will spend their money.

“New accounting regulations are making most boards feel as though the principal and school must be at least a co-signer on bank accounts. It may strictly not be required, but as the boards (as Marion points out) are legally responsible for the funds raised by school councils, it’s the easiest way for them to be accountable for them. The Ontario Association of School Business Officials recommends in it’s guidelines that one person at the school office be a signing official on the school council bank account. So this confirms you can have your own, but must share signing responsibility with someone at the school.

One way around it is to join the Federation of Home and School Associations and fundraise as that group. They are a legally separate group and must keep their funds separate from the school, even though they will be spent on things for the school. Please write back if you have more questions!”

http://schools-at-the-centre.ning.com/forum/topics/parent-council-funds

I would say that Doug is wearing his blinders on, and really should visit P4E. It sure looks that Kidder will have her hands full, since the posters have upgraded their discussions, and parents may not be the happy campers that Doug insists they are. One post titled, An Inclusive Education System, really tells how parents are picking up the policies sound find in theory, but in practice it another different kettle of fish.

Doug, one can have all the polls, but directing policy on polls can lead anyone down a garden path of bad policies. As for focus groups, who are on the focus groups?  If the public education system in Ontario are based on polls, no one has to wonder why policy goals have to be readjusted time and time again, to make it fit the reality. All one has to do is to look at the SE policies, and the reality of what is happening on the ground. Furthermore, good policy is based on a whole host of factors, and one of the important ones that are often neglected are the future negative impacts on the students and teachers.

Gee these right wingers think the Canadian system is great. Wrong resons but great system. Debate over, great system.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/What+Canada+teach+about+education/3226361/story.html

the line about not wanting to control the school was a line not at all associated with anything the two taskforces at the time were assigned to explore. It wasn’t part of the discussion paper.

What it was, was one of those red-herring remarks that got ramped up by media friendlies and unions who wanted no part of parents being partners in their system.

It was a nonsense comment that in no context represented the sentiments of other parent groups or organizations.

It was designed to take a dig at the legislation of the Tories of school councils….nothing more.

I’d like to comment on TDSBNW’s post that reads “A good example is school council funds. My old school council had the school office administrator do all their banking, bookkeeping, even keep their funds in the school bank account. A new principal questioned this practice—why didn’t the council have its own bank account? Should the parents not be depositing or withdrawing their money themselves, not using the school secretary to do it?  She thought the parents should take repsonsibility for their own initiatives, projects, and that this was a key element in modeling for their children that we are in charge of our own destinies.

I transferred, so don’t know how that worked out, but was surprised to learn the parents did not want control over their own money. There were some very involved parents in that group.

As a point of clarification school councils did at one time have control of their own money and accounts. That ended with McGuinty/Kennedy as they changed the rules so that the accounts must be run by the school and signing authority by the principal.

It happened all over the province and caused great commotion between those councils which raised thousands for a particular purpose only to have the administration get their cash.

Fast forward to today and this is still the case as councils must apply for their allocations each year. They’re accounted for and overseen by school admin.

Now it seems that parents are being paid off to be “engaged” with their schools, with their money.

Organizations with connections have figured out how to tap into that cash - P4E is a perfect example.

not true Doug “This is typical of parents councils across Ontario.”  - this was mandated by the gov’t and not a choice school councils had over their money.

There were MANY who managed their money just fine and accounted for it each and every year to their parent community as mandated.

You might have a fig leaf of credibility if we knew who you are. All we know is that you are not a sheep Cathy.

Oh sure there is a tiny radical group of militant parents who want some kind of control but they are not representitive of the vast majority who love our public system pretty much as it is.

Doug, that was uncalled for. Furthermore notasheep speaks the truth. It would not surprised in the next two years, that the issues such as having their own bank account, being overseen much like a child with a bank account, and the implied influence by the principals will rise to the surface.

The point that Mr. Sheep made is correct. The move to control or not control bank accounts or money within a school council was not because parents didn’t want it that way.

Mr. Little is incorrect.

Says who?

pretty much most on this forum Mr. Little.
If I was the Cathy you believe I am I would request from the owners of this blog to ban you from this site. I’m pretty sure it’s a violation of practice here to attempt to out contributors here.

It’s Mr. Sheep to you dude.

As John writes in another post perhaps questions should be raised as to the many dougs who post here.

“says who?” - says many parents at the time school councils were legislated. As a school council member during the time the province changed the accounting for council funding many objected.  Shannon and Sheep are correct.

As an aside, on the school council issue, who is supposed to run the school council meetings? I go to about half of them. In the past the school council chair, or co-chairs, always ran the meeting. Then a new principal came and now the principal and vice principal run the meeting, rather like they run staff meetings. They call on the chairs, secretary etc. to speak but basically run the meeting entirely themselves.

If this were not the way it is supposed to be I would expect our very politically active parents to take issue with it. But it surprised me, because I thought the school council was to include the principal but not to be an arm of the principal’s office, so to speak..

Uh, Doug, why did you include the link to the National Post article?  I didn’t see any discussion of SES or smaller class size as an explanation for Canadian out performance.  What I did see was this quote:
“Canada has opted for decentralized education policymaking, competitive education delivery systems and wider and more innovative schooling options for parents and their children.”

I’ve argued here on this blog for more parent/student choice and more overall decentralization so this article seems to be closer to my thinking than yours.  Am I missing something?

The National Post article contains a total change of line for the far right and disagrees 180 degrees from the main line here.

SQE line - Canada has a very bad eduction system but it could be fixed by public support for private schools, charter schools and alternate methods in the classroom

National Post - also a right wing line, Canada has an excellent education system using the same OECD TIMSS PISA evidence that I have used. They say Canada’s good system compared to the USA is due to private schools in BC, charter schools in Alberta and catholic schools in Ontario.

Of course this is a joke. Those programs in BC and Alberta are too small to have any effect.. Canada’s main advantage over the USA is the much smaller gap between the rich and the poor due to our socialist policies.

“If this were not the way it is supposed to be I would expect our very politically active parents to take issue with it. But it surprised me, because I thought the school council was to include the principal but not to be an arm of the principal’s office, so to speak”

The chair of the school council is supposed to run the meetings and make up the agenda based on requests form parents, staff and students.

Sounds very much like the parents at your school haven’t read the school council operation’s manual which is supposed to be part of what the chair of the council(a parent) should have been given.

Sounds also like the principal is in no hurry to let the parents in on what their role really is.

You should be aware that the federations are 100% behind school councils. Our experience is that the more parents know, the more they realize that the system is seriously underfunded and all the bake sales and fun fairs in the world will not make up the billions that are missing. They want more teachers in smaller classes with more specialized facilities and more resounces. Bonus.

The federations train the teachers that serve on the councils to keep the discussion off complaints about teachers which are out of bounds and on the resources shortage. “Yes all the wonderful things yo parents would like to do costs money and there is no money for that.”

All Power to the School Councils.

Sounds very much like the parents at your school haven’t read the school council operation’s manual which is supposed to be part of what the chair of the council(a parent) should have been given.

The council co-chairs (chairs have always been parents) are fluent in oral English but I don’t know whether they would or could read a manual in bureaucratese. They were/are active in board and Ministry parent involvement workshops and activities.

These were the same parents who had run the School Council for the previous several years, so one would think they should know about who should run the meeting and how. They had always chaired the meetings before.

Good to hear Doug.

For the interest of others here this might help clarify the stand of OSSTF re: school councils. 

“8.22 School Councils (A.04)
8.22.1 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should be optional. (A.04)
8.22.2 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should be advisory. (A.04)
8.22.3 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should have no involvement in the evaluation,
hiring, firing or promotion of any school
personnel. (A.04)
8.22.4 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should not be obliged to raise funds for
schools. (A.04)
8.22.5 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should avoid activities that would result in
commercialization of schools. (A.04)
8.22.6 It is the policy of OSSTF that there should be
no limitation on eligibility for holding school
council positions based on a parent=s
employment with the school board. (A.04)
8.22.7 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should advocate for quality and diversity of
school programs. (A.04)
8.22.8 It is the policy of OSSTF that school councils
should advocate for the interests of all students
in the school. (A.04)

TDSBNW - the school council operations manual is in plain English and not at all in edubabble. It was written by parents for parents.  If your board is like others in this province (a stretch I know but…) then there’s always a session at training on meetings and operations. After 12 years of school councils there is just as much responsibilty parents need to shoulder with their success up to and including reminding the principal of the companion legislation to 612/00.

Sounds very odd but if the parents wanted help it’s there in neighbouring school councils. I’m sure People for Education would help them out.

Although I am no longer bound by any of that since I am no longer an officer of OSSTF, I certainly gree with all of it.

Doug of course you agree with the policy of OSSTF and parent councils. It is there position, that parents are to become yes sire, how many loafs do you want, groups. That policy shows clearly, that parents are there only to support the school, in whatever direction the administration wants, along with the staff. A parent council in the OSSTF eyes, are parents who do not interfere with any of the operations of the school.

This little line from one of your posts, “You should be aware that the federations are 100% behind school councils. Our experience is that the more parents know, the more they realize that the system is seriously underfunded and all the bake sales and fun fairs in the world will not make up the billions that are missing. They want more teachers in smaller classes with more specialized facilities and more resounces. Bonus.

The federations train the teachers that serve on the councils to keep the discussion off complaints about teachers which are out of bounds and on the resources shortage. “Yes all the wonderful things yo parents would like to do costs money and there is no money for that.“

It is all about controlling the meetings, the direction, off the taboo topics, such as operations, accounting, and staff. By doing it this way, what happens in some schools, parents get different messages. One from their own children, that is much different than the messages coming from the administration and councils. What usually happens, parents disengage from the school, and when things happen, as parents we don’t know what to think.

The latest in my corner of the world, is that the principal is leaving the high school, and we need 3 math teachers. These two facts were not communicated in any shape or form. This news came on top of a newspaper article,by the parents’ federation looking for answers to their question posed to the boards. “In April, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils (NLFSC) put in a request to the school boards to for information on how teaching resources are being divided among schools.”

“We want see at least the status quo maintained,” John Smith, vice-president of the organization, said.

In addition to his role on the NLFSC, he chairs the school councils of a junior high and a high school in Conception Bay South.

He said effective teacher allocation is especially important in ensuring students who have social or academic problems get the support they need.”

Well, I could not have been more surprised to hear from the school council federation, posing questions that will certainly make any board become uncomfortable. Of course the boards response was, they have not heard anything from the federation. I guess letters coming from the federation, are filed under G for garbage.

Going back to the local high school, and what is happening there, the school council federation is concern not only on teacher allocations, but a number of other concerns that have been allowed to fester. It is the same in Ontario, it is a matter of time when the problems start to fester, when parents are controlled and not allowed to voiced their displeasure on other taboo topics such as teachers and programs.

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=345643&sc=79

First of Nancy, discussion of teachers is of limits from the get go. If you think the experience of school councils makes parents into education conservtives you are dead wrong. First of all few conservative types volunter, secondly they usually find themselves quickly outnumbered. The very role itself attracts people who believe in the public school and want to build it up not tear it down. People who feel more must be spent, there are unmet needs that need to be funded want to serve on SCs.

You must continue to be shocked by the fact that actual parents support the schools and want to see them do well. Parents generally want the status quo or a more liberal system.

I have been on the parents’ councils in Ontario. What the principals object as in my observations, are questions that makes them very uncomfortable. Teachers, principals, are much as a part of school life as the students are. When you remove parts of a system that is not up for discussion, it becomes almost impossible for a parent council to do its job. How can it, when almost everything is connected, and can be traced to the staff and the principal as topics that cannot be discussed.  Even in fundraising it will come up, especially in areas of funding for special computer software to serve a certain segment of the population, that is not on the approved list.

As for the unmet needs of the students, an audit would be the correct procedure , and it would certainly show how money is shift from the students to other concerns. Putting more money into a system, without correcting the systematic faults and flow of money, is like pouring more money into GM, so they can go into Chapter 11 proceedings. Which is what exactly happen.

What became obvious to me in reading over the OSSTF
policy statements is that despite the opinion here of how it is the MOE and bureaucrats responsible for all things affecting curriculum content, delivery etc. and not to cast any blame on the unions, the policies say something very different. Have a look for yourselves at:

http://www.osstf.on.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=92a33f72-f609-44c6-bc69-f607ec53b228&MediaID=68cce4da-754d-45c3-b226-c3b0ad01b258&Filename=policystatements-en.pdf&l=English

Provide this form with proof of this Doug,

“First of all few conservative types volunteer, secondly they usually find themselves quickly outnumbered.”

What nonsense but considering the source are we really surprised?

  You are also wrong on the role of school councils. School councils were put in place to work with the school to improve achievement for students. They are accountable to the school parent community only. Not unions, not the principal.

  Because school council parents are elected they should be treated as on par with their elected trustees.

  School councils have the statutory authority to be very powerful if they know how to exercise their authority an are aware of how they can be blindsided by territorial administrations and the unions. Council parents need to go into their roles with their eyes wide open and that’s where networking with other parents in other boards is helpful.

  The thought of parents organizing and talking together must scare the crap out of the education hierarchy and unions. Their potential power must be very strong otherwise they wouldn’t have fought them so hard.

the[OSSTF] policies say something very different

Uh, really? You posted a link to 50 pages of extremely fine print. I scanned it carefully and could find NOTHING to do with curriculum development and enforcement.

On the other hand, there was a page or two of policy regarding the appropriate support of exceptional students, including providing teachers with the needed resources and strategies to assist. I say HEAR! HEAR! Yooo hoo, MOE—take notice!

Now Canada is a free country, go ahead and hate and bash unions all you want. That’s absolutely fine. But when you blame them for things that are the responsibilities of others, you make yourself look ignorant, narrow-minded, poorly-informed or all three.

Unions are in charge of negotiating on behalf of their members, attempting (with varying success) to enforce the collective agreement, and providing advice and support to members on matters the members choose—things like career planning, counseling, leadership development, and more.

Like it or not, the MOE and the Board are the ones who determine curriculum. The requirements for “fuzzy math” and “whole language” come from them. It is not a “union” conspiracy. Maintaining that it is totally undermines the credibility of the very legitimate arguments against the curricula and their damaging effects on children, especially poor kids.

If you think that unions are the cause of Whole Language, all you need to do is go to the many U.S. states which have no teachers’ unions, and try to find one with the curricula you want. Good luck. What will you find? Balanced Literacy! Fuzzy math! Discovery learning! Poor kids failing, and middle class kids failing too. Crappy schools, lousy schievement, abysmal test results.

On the other hand, the weather is nice.

  The thought of parents organizing and talking together must scare the crap out of the education hierarchy and unions. Their potential power must be very strong otherwise they wouldn’t have fought them so hard.

I doubt it. I’ve been looking for parent activists to work to change the system for years. I can’t find them. There are a minority of engaged and active parents, but almost all are (as Doug Little pointed out) pleased with the status quo, and looking for some specific change, like more libraries, more gym teachers, or something similar. They are not looking for changes in teaching methods or curriculum. They want smaller classes, even if that means cutting special ed and other support services.

At my last school they even polled the parents on this.  The academic outcomes at that school were horrendous, but most people were happy with the school. Kids were busy and happy, classes were smaller than average. Results were not on anyone’s mind, apparently.

The militant parents are few in number. I’ve tried to find them, and I don’t think many are out there. Heck, there are none, so far as I can see, on this board. Where are the parents of currently enrolled public school kids in Ontario?

We’ve heard from homeschoolers, and from Nancy, who is in Newfoundland. Most everyone else posting here has kids who are out of the system. Where are the militant Ontario parents? If I can’t even find them in the TDSB, I doubt there is a significant body of them out there.

In TDSB, at least, parents who want a stronger curriculum focus on “the basics” could start an alternative school to emphasize these things. Guess what? Not a whisper of such a proposal has come forward (I checked with the co-ordinator for alternative schols not long ago). I’ve looked for people interested in doing such a proposal, because I would have jumped on board. So would other teachers,and even some admins, that I know. But it hasn’t happened.

On the other hand, there are parents actively lobbying for particular issues, mainly around racism, human rights, etc. But they are not on your wavelength at all, and when I bring up charters, even alternative schools, they are not interested.

Nancy, because they were elected they should be considered the same as trustees? That is such a joke I cannot take it seriously. Teachers are also mandated onto the school councils as is   the principal.

Actually we love the parents getting very active because they all love Annie Kidder around here and take their cue from her. We are not worried in the least. You go parents.

Their usual conclusion s I have said is that there are not enough teachers and the classes are too big.

I agree with TDSBNW-
In a way-re curriculum choices-and Union-
I also don`t think they are at the source of pedagogical strategy.

I was asking Doug if he could get the Union to see that teachers need more training in SBRI-In order for them to be elevated professionally and get better results.

I see it too-the responsibility for curriculum choice is MOE and Ben Levin and Michael Fullan are at the head of the food chain and their allocation of 25 million a year to a Literacy Secretariat that spews their wares is disgusting.

On the document, 8.3, 8.4. and 8.5 pertaining to curriculum.

From 8.3

“8.3.4 It is the policy of OSSTF that the making of
policy decisions within each school should be
the joint responsibility of the principal and all
the staff. (R.10)
8.3.5 It is the policy of OSSTF that members should have meaningful involvement in the
decision-making process affecting education at
all organizational levels. (R.10)
8.3.6 It is the policy of OSSTF that the
implementation of innovations should be
undertaken only after proper pilot testing
occurs in a controlled environment and with
members involved officially, as equal partners,
in the implementation and evaluation teams.”

From 8.4

“It is the policy of OSSTF that district school
boards and/or the Ministry of Education should
provide opportunities for members to be
involved as equal partners in all aspects of the
curriculum development process, including
policy formulation, planning, development,
validation, evaluation, and review at all levels
from classroom through to the provincial level.
(R.10)
8.4.2 It is the policy of OSSTF that the Ministry of
Education, in conjunction with the teacher
federations, should establish and maintain
long-range planning policies and procedures
for curriculum development, implementation
and review, which include: (R.10)”

From 8.5

“It is the policy of OSSTF that school boards
should offer and deliver through school board
personnel all appropriate support services for
students. (A.02)
8.5.4 It is the policy of OSSTF that the Ministry of
Education should provide, along with
curriculum policy, appropriate course profiles,
adequate funding for texts and other learning
resources in both official languages, and
appropriate professional development well in
advance of the date of implementation . (A.04)
8.5.5 It is the policy of OSSTF that the scheduling,
organization, and execution of programs of
study, and inquiry into controversial, difficult,
and disturbing issues should be a fundamental
right of teachers in the schools of Ontario..”

What was illuminating was the language. How and by whom was responsible was clearly define, where the board or the ministry was clearly define in delivering the resources, but all over the place when it came to the responsibilities and accountability of the policies, that clearly shows in the case of OSSTF, the demands of being an equal partner in all curriculum decisions.

Perhaps the OSSTF does not fight for changes in curriculum, because it is not in their best interests to do so. Other studies found in the journals, have stated that few unions fight for curriculum changes because they have already traded off their expertise in curriculum policy, in exchange for favourable contracts.

But Chuck is right unions have the power and influence to make changes in the curriculum at any time, if they choose to. They have not done so, because it is not in their best interests to do so.

Thanks for isolating that Nancy, it proves TDSBNW and I right and Chuck-Sharron wrong whether they are one person or two people.

The UNIONS do not make policy in the curriculum area. They ARE one source of input.

Horsefeathers, Nancy. Most of those policy statements you quoted are simply expressions of wishful thinking. Teachers “should” be involved in a,b,c,d. Teachers “should” have a voice in f,g,h,i.

They don’t.

Why don’t you get all in a lather that the caretakers’ union (CUPE) is not fighting for curriculum changes? If kids were learning more, they wouldn’t be stuffing toilets with paper towels, or having food fights in the lunchroom. It’s in their own interests to have better student achievement.

I’m really surprised that you find the OSSTF policy statement, that calls for appropriate funding and support for kids with exceptionalities, for providing the needed learning resources in schools, etc. to be some kind of self-serving teachers-trying-to-dumb-down-the-kids plot.

I conclude you simply don’t understand the concept of balance of powers. Complex systems work best when the component subsystems work in their own best interests and for the good of the whole, and part of that work is balancing competing interests and making sure they have to work together to compromise and hold each others’ feet to the fire.

Bill 160 in Ontario destroyed that balance of power, by castrating elected school boards and giving the MOE extraordinary and dictatorial powers which no one can now rein in. Neither unions, nor school trustees (who are the respresentatives of parents and the citizenry) can mount effective opposition or exercise the balance of power that keeps all parties accountable.

There is a reason why the right must continue to attack teachers’ unions. Teachers’ unions have the power to block reform, (privatization) which is the real goal and cornerstone of conservative thinking. It is not difficult since privatization is profoundly unpopular but it will continue although you will not get them to admit it.

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

I’m not sure there was a “balance of power” when trustees, operating on a part-time basis, are pitted against both the school board bureaucracy and various employee unions.

Then you have the issue of what trustee would ever be willing to get slapped around by, say, a job action if the alternative is to simply increase taxes and make all the problems go away.

A “balance of power” suggests two sides roughly equal in power; that hasn’t been the case with school boards for years, at least in terms of having well meaning amateurs representing the public.

Wake up John, trustees have not been able to raise taxes since your friend Harris centralized all important education decisions to the Mowat Block.

Try to keep up. You are sadly outof touch.

Ummm…

  That’s the point.  TDSBNW said there was a “balance of power” before and not now; my point is that there wasn’t really a balance of power then either.  The difference then was that trustees could, and would, simply raise taxes to get out of problems.

Reading before you respond is a useful idea.  Try it.

“Bill 160 in Ontario destroyed that balance of power, by castrating elected school boards and giving the MOE extraordinary and dictatorial powers which no one can now rein in. Neither unions, nor school trustees (who are the respresentatives of parents and the citizenry) can mount effective opposition or exercise the balance of power that keeps all parties accountable.”

What is described in the above quote, is an outcome of a centralization model. Many education systems are forms of the centralization models. Prior to Bill 160, the public school system was not as highly centralized, where school boards were in control of major decision policies on direction, curriculum, and funding policies. Ditto for the teachers unions, where Bill 160 force the unions to become more hard-core to protect their members and the gains made over the years. As noted on a paper titled, The Battle Over Ontario’s Bill 160, and The Shape of Teachers’ Collective Bargaining:
“The net result is a very restricted arena in which collective bargaining can take place. The province, with its controls on spending and how many teachers are employed, now determines the compensation budget — salaries and benefits — for teachers. “
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul98/gbedard.pdf

Centralization models have advantages of scale, but the disadvantages to the major stake holders and to the users are evident in forcing all into positions, where they are force to defend the current status-quo and at the same time selectively picking their issues for change. Change is slow to come, and even when change does occur, the outcomes are filled with unintended consequences.

Centralization is a model, where powers are concentrated at the top, and forces all into compliance of policy. There is little room for innovation and creative policy decisions at the bottom. In the Ontario education system, like other provinces that have taken a centralized approach by controlling the funding of the system and key operations such as curriculum, it forces the individual school to prioritized the local issues of the school, and have the issues first complied to the policy, which in turns leaves very little room to tackled the issues that actually impacts learning.

Take the example of a special education services. The child must be labeled and identified, before SE services can be obtained. The school is not allow to developed their own policies to addressed the educational needs of their SE population, without entering a process where the school needs the approval of both the board and the ministry, to make the changes necessary that would customized the approach, that may be radically different from the approve policy for all boards and schools.

Another paper, titled “ORGANIZATIONAL CONFIGURATION AND PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEMS, it states “A U-Form school system is one in which all systems are specialized at the headquarters. Thus, the purchasing of books and materials, control over utility budgets, personnel hiring and evaluation, and teacher training – all are closely controlled within their own functionally specialized units at headquarters. Individual schools are functionally specialized as well, having the sole function of implementing the staffing plan, pedagogical, and other plans that have been decided at a headquarters office. They accept the formulaically determined numbers of teachers, aides, counselors, nurses, and other staff that they are given, and these employees receive whatever training the central office provides. “
http://www.williamouchi.com/docs/primary_secondary.pdf

There is a problem inherent in centralized structures found in public education systems, and it an equity problem. As noted on another paper, titled “Public School Finance: An Examination of Superintendents Attitudes on Equity,
Adequacy, Accountability and Policy Alternatives”:

“Today the education system is shifting towards the centralized theme where goals and benchmarks are defined for schools, districts, and states. Centralized policymaking has made it difficult to resolve more and more problems at the local level. It is becoming harder for local school districts to pass policy that is best for their district because of the centralization of education.”
ecommons.txstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=arp

The present centralized education model in Ontario and in other provinces, there is opportunities to make changes and influence education policy. I believe it is where the boards and the unions can take a stand, but it comes down to if the particular organizations are willing to confront the ministry with the evidence that is mounting that a centralized structure is creating great inequities across the board. The solution is to decentralized, but than are the boards and the unions willing to allow policy decisions where schools can than customized their policies to the school;s student population needs?

To correct the last link in my last post.
http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://ecommons.txstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=arp&rct=j&sa=U&ei=_EwxTKqrD8PInAeol_HbAw&ved=0CBMQFjAA&sig2=IjSUL4p4aMcaF4y4jj41Hg&q=ecommons.txstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=arp&usg=AFQjCNH5Opy6o_wPv_Hx-q_obW9OaY4Miw

Sorry, a bit too long,

Not my day. Just copy the last link in the first post, and paste it on the search engine. The second correction will only bring you to Texas University site.

Take the example of a special education services. The child must be labeled and identified, before SE services can be obtained. The school is not allow to developed their own policies to addressed the educational needs of their SE population, without entering a process where the school needs the approval of both the board and the ministry, to make the changes necessary that would customized the approach

This is exactly the opposite of what happens in the TDSB, and the opposite of what the MOE recommends. Identification and labeling are *not required* to provide services. Special Ed has changed radically.

I know I have posted about Sp. Ed procedures at least a half dozen times, in detail. Obviousy some are not “getting it.” Go ahead and believe whatever you want. Who care about the facts? Fantasy is ever so much more satisfying anyway.

In Canada, no matter what corner of the country one is in, the top services such as Orton-Gillingham methods, the child must be identified. Pull-out programs such as reading remediations, and other things are being used as a method to include as many children as possible, to catch learning problems. It is a short-term solution, but for students who do have learning problems that falls on the mild to moderate spectrum, it will help masked the weaknesses of the students, because the weaknesses were never targeted in the first place. It is the system of rules and regulations, that even though throughout Canada, one does not need to be labeled to have an IEP, but there is conditions put on, where subjective data enters into the equation.

“An IEP must be developed for every student who has been identified as an “exceptional pupil” by an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC), in accordance with Regulation 181/98.

An IEP may be developed for a student who has not been formally identified as exceptional, but who has been deemed by the board to require special education programs or services in order to attend school or to achieve curriculum expectations and/or whose learning expectations are modified from or alternative to the expectations set out for a particular grade level or course in a provincial curriculum policy document.

An IEP must be developed, as supporting documentation, if an Intensive Support Amount (ISA) funding claim is submitted by a school board on behalf of a student who has not been identified as exceptional by an IPRC, but who is receiving a special education program and services. “
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/iep/iep.html#1.

It is within here, that kids fall through the cracks. The ones who are passing, just barely. The ones whose grades all over the place. Yes it is easier to get an IEP, but what is not easy even for the school is to obtain the resources and staff to target the weaknesses. Even more so, for children who have been identified with language difficulties. Yes the rules and regulations have now made it easier to identified kids, but to obtain the heavily costly SE programs, the child must meet the criteria. Children who have good grades, but have poor writing skills, coupled with weaker reading skills, are at a lower priority than the children who are more severe, because they are completing with scarcity of resources. Who controls the resources, the board and the ministry.

It is the lack of resources and staff that drives parents to the specialized tutors, to get the specialized help. They all have waiting lists. And this is the set of parents who are willing to spend their own money to get help for their children. However for the majority of parents, and their children the schools become very important as a source for help for their children. It puts pressure on the schools to become very creative to by-pass the rules and regulations, and still remain legal to the eyes of the watchdogs, that it is within the mandate of the curriculum and other policies.

I have to credit schools the work they do with children who have learning problems, despite the education system, becoming a mean centralization structure.  It is why I prefer the decentralized approach, where schools have control over and be able to customized their schools to the needs of their students. Centralization models have a tendency to ignored the needs of the individual schools, and opt for standardization across all schools. Standardization forces schools into a square peg, when their shape is round or a triangle. In order to standardized, the resources are control by the top levels, to force the schools into a square peg.

Nancy, your information is just INCORRECT. It is WRONG.. 

You claim to know what is done “all over Canada” no matter what corner of the country you’re in.

You do not know what is going on in every corner of the country. There are no national rules or policies for Special Ed. I don’t know what goes on “in every corner of the country” but I sure as heck do know what goes on in Ontario generally, and in the TDSB particularly, and your ramblings are completely inaccurate.

The document you quote is from the year 2000 and is out of date and no longer in effect. There are no ISA claims, funding is on a per-pupil basis, and any child can have an IEP without going rhrough any board procedures.

Also, FYI, “mild to moderate spectrum” in Ontario refers to students with mental retardation, not learning disabilities.  There is no “mild to moderate” in LD here.

If any parents are reading this, I hope they disregard what you say and seek out proper sources of information. They will be seriously misled if they listen to you.

If your info is so out of date maybe we should not believe you about anything Nancy?

Here is a link for the Ontario 2008 audit report.

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2008_en.htm

Under Chapter 3 - 3.18 - Special Education.

“Our audit objective was to assess whether the Ministry of Education (Ministry) and selected school boards had adequate procedures for:
• assessing the extent to which special education programs and services met the needs of students with special education needs; and
• ensuring that programs and services complied with legislation, regulations, and policies regarding special education and were delivered economically and efficiently.”

In summary: While the Ministry of Education (Ministry) has increased special education funding since the 2001/02 school year by 54%, the number of students served increased by only about 5%. Although provincial test results and our audit indicated that progress has been made since our last audit in 2001, there are still a number of areas where practices need to be improved to ensure that the significant funding increases result in continuous improvement in the outcomes for students with special education needs in Ontario.
Some of our more significant observations are as follows:

1. Early identification
2. IEPs and the setting of learning goals/quality
3. Documentation
4. Compliance of school boards
5. Fewer formal assessments
6. Parents and students not adequately informed of achievement on report cards, compared to their assessments.
7. Parents are not fully understanding their child’s achievement, and areas of improvement due to only discussing the positive gains.
8. Little documentation on transition from elementary to high school to post secondary or work
9. “The Ministry does not require that school boards establish procedures to assess the quality of the special education services and supports at their schools and whether the schools complied with legislation, regulations, and policies. None of the school boards we audited had established such procedures.”

The recommendations are further down. One that caught my interest are the gaps are not being assessed and compared to their achievements.  “To help ensure that schools properly monitor the progress of students with special education needs and identify effective practices, the Ministry of Education should provide schools with guidance on:
• how to measure the amount of students’ progress in acquiring knowledge and skills, and use this information to assess the effectiveness of the teaching strategies and accommodations and make changes where appropriate; and
• monitoring the progress of students with special education needs against an appropriate benchmark—which would be, in many cases, regular curriculum expectations—and assessing whether changes in the gap between students’ current levels of achievement and regular curriculum expectations are appropriate.”

As for other organizations, the Canadian Learning Disability Association, and their provincial chapters are working hard to present to the schools the problems that parents are having. In the Ontario Chapter, they are making headway at not only the school levels but as well at the boards and ministry levels. In one, there are working with the Law Commission of Ontario, asking LD people to participate in a study. “The Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) would like to hear about the experiences of persons with disabilities with provincial laws, programs and policies.  We are looking for participants in our focus groups to discuss how the law affects you, as a person living with disability. 

Specifically, the LCO wants to hear your thoughts on issues such as eligibility criteria for disability-related programs and whether systems for enforcing your rights are effective.  The LCO will consider your stories and ideas in making recommendations for law reform to the Ontario government.”
http://www.ldao.ca/aboutLDs/news_full.php?id=185

As for using the word spectrum, it is commonly used in the medical world. With LD, like other disorders, it runs from mild to moderate to severe. Even my own child’s two assessments, states mild to moderate. Just a year ago, I contacted a private psychologist, on doing an independent assessment. The first thing she wanted to know is it mild to moderate or severe. She had a very good reason to asked, because the mild to moderate LD cases are very hard to determined.  She eased my concerns about the assessment, and had given me some excellent advice. As a result, the next assessment for grade 10 is on track, as well as the grade 12 assessment.

As for other provinces, and Canada as a whole, there is enough Special Education reports, outlining the difficulties that SE children are facing. The Ontario’s 2008 Audit Report, is special because it is an audit. If audits were conducted in other provinces, they would not look much different from this report. It is the centralization structure, that are causing much of the trouble.

Nancy,the special education sector is very very well funded and yet completely fractured because after the IPRC-There is no true follow through on recommendations.

I truly don`t care what is going on with LD Associations-they are so dysfunctional it isn`t even funny.

Give it a rest,you`re NEVER going to impact on SE-EVER-
The school boards won`t spend the money to do things right-and Centralization is not the issue-the issue is even at a Masters in Reading level teachers remained untrained other than in ideological diverse theory.

Stats show up to 94% of students in special ed have a reading problem as their main obstacle to success.

Trust me,even after years of advocacy for significant early intervention based on research so the SE diagnosis can be averted-the struggle is ridiculous.They refuse outright to give children PENICILLIN.

Here is a quote from Dr.Samuel Orton
“The trouble with Dyslexia is it`s a neurological problem for which the treatment is educational.”

Dyslexia simply means difficulty with language-be it reading,spelling or writing or all 3.

I am angry at the simplicity with which you send these e mails like it`s not out in out political warfare that has been fought for decades.

If the teachers were trained properly at University we wouldn`t be where we are and we will continue to be till it stops!

Careful Jo-Anne the right wing position is changing and leaving you behind.

You`re a riot Mr.Little-

You have zero power and allwheels are on the bus-we just don`t collect dues from herds of teachers to assist in supporting our endeavour-

Read Children of the Code-

Your article is ridiculous-who cares about National Post-I like Margaret Wente in the Globe personally.

Talk about somebody with zero influence. I think if you check the background of the authors of the Post article it will give you pause. You have been thrown under the bus by those with privatization as their only goal.

PLEASE-

I am astounded-this is just PR for one of the organizations listed in the article.
Not impressed-AT ALL-

This article not only tells us how #1 is #1 but check the penultimate paragraph where she talks about high scoring countries.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_04/24_04_finland.shtml

I agree-it`s a good article-Canada is no way there-in all aspects-

If teachers knew about the empirical reading research-would they teach the way they do in the elementary grades?No!

They don`t learn about it at University-
They are thrown out like lambs to slaughter-and they weep at the responsibility they have at teaching Reading and not succeeding-they`re not stupid-they see and know it!

Our training system for elementary teachers is so weak-they ALL tell me it`s a joke.

Please don`t bore me with you #1 e mails-

You can see Finland figured something out of great complexity-we pretend everything is alright and have guys like you saying we`re number 3 when 55% of the classroom is failing on a regular basis.

The recent improvement in scores under McGuinty-EQAO-ARE DUE TO A LITTLE TRICK THEY HAVE-IF THE KIDS CAN`T READ THE TEST-THEY READ IT TO THEM-OUT OF COMPASSION:(

The recent improvement in scores under McGuinty-EQAO-ARE DUE TO A LITTLE TRICK THEY HAVE-IF THE KIDS CAN`T READ THE TEST-THEY READ IT TO THEM-OUT OF COMPASSION:(

No, Jo-Anne, they don’t do that.

We can read the questions in the Mathematics test to any student, and we can also read the questions on the Writing portion to any student.

We absolutely may not read the Reading portion of the test—the questions or the selected passages—to any student.

Students who have visual impairments are the only exception here. If they are legally blind, they may listen to the selections on CDs.

All you have to do is read the disclipline pages in the “Professionally Speaking” magazine. Teachers and principals hauled up for infringement of EQAO administration rules. Most teachers who do bend the rules have been threatened or ordered to do so by their administraton, but anyone who does it is a fool and is asking for it.

Besides, it’s not necessary. Even kids who are total non-readers can score level 2 or 3. I have seen numerous such examples. The kids who could not read a word (in grade 6) wrote “i kant red” on every single item on the test, and got a level 2 across the board.

So no cheating is needed

The results can be manipulated through the marking process, by changing the requirements for the different levels from year to year. I have personally witnessed this as well.

My apologies-yes-very interesting indeed-your information.

I got this info from Frank Klees`s assistant a few years ago-obviously they are misinformed.

Your info though is even more damning-of the cover up.

By the way-WWC-I have spoken to Dr.Lyons and all is actually well-they run it like FDA-It`s rigorous and it`s tough and he feels it will eventually save Education effectiveness-they feel that id something doesn`t work it shouldn`t be out there..

Obviously-so many things are marketed through publishers and sell that have no business selling and being purchased by boards-

But first our pedagogical tenets need repairing in Canada-

The education field is forever bombarded by quick fix silver bullet solutions that NEVER pan out. We need to put our efforts into grinding it out and triaging our efforts towards those behind. The one thing the EQAO results should show us is where more teachers need to go and possibly who could get by with fewer. This shift needs to happen whether within the context of a zero sum game or including additional staff.

Why not look to a consensual NICHD half a billion dollar consensual study?

The first steps pedagogically are wrong-after that the complexities of failure build as the years go on.

Thanks for the above-I agree-but I personally don`t want 50 educrats spewing their opinion-we need to be research driven!
Not one guy thinks this driven-