Of course. Good for the teachers. The very idea that test scores are designed to grade teachers is simply ludicrous.

good thing that charter schools abound in Massachusetts so parents can choose from schools that are confident that the success of their students is related to teacher quality and competence.

The very idea that test scores are designed to grade teachers is just one example of accounting for the time kids spend in school.

Of course, no surprise that the usual suspects don’t see it that way.

You will notice that charter schools are unionizing at an incredible rate. The teacher turn over is many times the public school rate and career teachers just won’t put up with long hours, low pay and no say so they walk or unionize.

Esteemed education professor and historian Diane Ravitch from NYU and former Under Secretary of Education under George Bush has a powerful new book out; The Death and Life of the Great American School System, thesis? How the American education system is being destroyed by testing and choice.

I’m sure you will all love it.

Mr. Little, do you know what the book actually says? We can read the publicity blurbs too, but as of today the book has not been released.  Have you an advance copy that you have read?

She has also done interviews where she outlined the thesis of the book. I can’t wait for her to devastate the so-called reform movement that is wrecking American education with charter, vouchers, NCLB which is wildly unpopular, testing for teachers etc. She is a heavy hitter with maximum credibility since she also has long opposed the “do your own thing” granola Kumbaya lefties in education as well. She has a regular column in Education Week, the journal of record in the USA.

The tide was already going out on this nonsense before because all the studies were showing no gains due to these reforms.

A prize for guessing who wrote this:

” From the “Life Adjustment Movement’’ of the 1950s to “Outcome-Based Education’’ in the 1980s, one “innovation’’ after another devalued academic subject matter while making schooling relevant, hands-on, and attuned to the real interests and needs of young people.

To be sure, there has been resistance. In Roslyn, Long Island, in the 1930s, parents were incensed because their children couldn’t read but spent an entire day baking nut bread. The Roslyn superintendent assured them that baking was an excellent way to learn mathematics.

None of these initiatives survived. They did have impact, however: They inserted into American education a deeply ingrained suspicion of academic studies and subject matter. For the past century, our schools of education have obsessed over critical-thinking skills, projects, cooperative learning, experiential learning, and so on. But they have paid precious little attention to the disciplinary knowledge that young people need to make sense of the world.

For over a century we have numbed the brains of teachers with endless blather about process and abstract thinking skills. We have taught them about graphic organizers and Venn diagrams and accountable talk, data-based decision-making, rubrics, and leveled libraries.

But we have ignored what matters most. We have neglected to teach them that one cannot think critically without quite a lot of knowledge to think about. Thinking critically involves comparing and contrasting and synthesizing what one has learned. And a great deal of knowledge is necessary before one can begin to reflect on its meaning and look for alternative explanations.”

Mr. Little, it may amuse you to drop Diane Ravitch’s name in order to boost your own credibility, but don’t make the mistake of presuming she represents your political views of education. Or that her reasons for opposing the certain education “reforms” align with yours. That is, what is good for unions and leftwing politicos is necessarily good for children, schools and societies.  And she does not share your contempt for the “non-educator”

First I have read every one of her major books and agree with almost all of it, have you?

Second there is nothing above that I disagree with. Surprised?

Third I read her piece where she teams up with Deborah Meier every week to discuss education topics. She is deeply disappointed with Obama because he has maintained most of Bush’s education policies including the test and punish absurd policy of NCLB which is also wildly unpopular. She called Arne Duncan, Margaret Spellings in drag.

Oh Diane Ravitch and I share most our education philosophy. Try her major work Left Behind. You will get a lot out of it Charles.

You may have read all of her books but you most certainly don’t share her views on what works in education.  You support a public program that is constructivist, child-centered, politicized, rejects research based pedagogy and is contemptuous of parents. You are fantasizing if you think she shares your philosophies!

You need to read her more carefully Charles. Do you think she supports the SQE prevailing view of education? Not on your life. She calls herself a tough, no nonsense Liberal. I can identify with that.

The vast majority of families send their kids to local public schools and they are generally fine.  However, there are significant numbers of families who do not get satisfaction from their schools.  Often schools are unresponsive and blame the kids (they’re poor, disadvantaged, new immigrants, etc.) or the lack of money, despite billions spent on doing the same ineffective programs, for those kids’ poor academic outcomes.

While the U.S. teachers’ unions might naturally hate school choice, the parents who avail themselves of charters or vouchers are generally satisfied.  Their children are doing well and that’s what is supposed to matter.  Low and middle income families don’t care about education philosophy.  They care that their children are in safe schools that deliver a sound education with out excuses.

You can view SQE’s DVD on Alberta Charter Schools here:  http://www.fcpp.org/media.php/369

Here’s some other heartwrenching evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0lnTmEAvYo

or visit http://www.thecartel.com

More carefully!

Mr. Little, Diane Ravitch is foursquare against Constructivist educational philosophy.  And that’s the philosophy that rules teachers’ colleges, school boards and classrooms in Ontario and in most of Canada.

That’s the philosophy that you have been advocating in many of your comments here.  It’s what teachers’ unions, if they even know what that means, are forced to accept in their Deal with the Devil.

I don’t think you know what it means.  I doubt you fully remember what you said five minutes ago, so much of what you say is repetitious and reflexive jargon

Kumbaya.

The evidence from the USA is accumulating that the success rate of charter schools is below that of public schools.

Charles nobody agrees about everything, I have read all of her books and am in agreement with a great deal of what she says. I will be in agreement for sure with her position that the two things wrecking American education are their obsession with testing and their idea that charters are any kind of solution.

Let us see your evidence Doug.

Check the CREDO study from Stanford University. You can find it easily with google . I don’t want to copy out long addresses.

17% of charters do better than local schools, 37% do worse, rest are the same. In other words 83% of local public schools do as well as or better than their local charter.

Big study of vouchers after 20 years in Milwaukee showed no benefits over local schools.

Charles is the Ravitch quote above there is almost nothing I disagree with. I opposed OBE from the first moment it set foot on the Ontario scene. Data based decision making is a joke, we have all the date we need, the poor do badly, lets fix that, rubrics and strands, I once told a PD session from the TDSB that I thought a rubric was a very good sandwich much like a Monte Christo.

I am a very srong opponent of jargon. Co-op leaning has its place, but people should not get carried away with it. Once again it is A tool. Projects also have a place and are generally supported by parents, many of whom it seems like to actually do the project which forced me to design projects that were actually done mainly at school.

Yes one cannot think critically without knowledge to think about. I teach history.

To quote respected Harvard economist Carolyn Hoxby, who wrote in response to the charge that charter schools lagged behind their public school peers:

“The goal of charter reforms is not creating good charter schools in the midst of mediocre public schools.  The goal is boosting the performance of all schools by fostering competition and innovation.  In the long run, we want to see charter schools and neighboring public schools perform similarly, all at a higher level.  In states with a significant charter presence, like Arizona and Michigan, there is evidence that public schools rise to the challenge and raise achievement faster when they face a charter competitor.”  (Wall St. Journal, Sept. 29 2004)

So the fact that charters appear not to be doing so well relative to their regular public counterparts, might just mean that “all boats rise” and that things are working out as they should.

Hoxby’s research is a little suspect although I personally believe it is honest but because she does studies for charter advocacy groups, people will wonder.

Doretta, your answer sounds a lot like, “yes charter schools do not do as well as public schools but there are other benefits.”

Doug, I’m sure Harvard deans can sleep better knowing that you approve of Dr. Hoxby’s credentials.

You didn’t understand my answer at all.  The point is that when faced with the competition from charters, all schools improved.  It’s relative.  There is lots of research on this which I’m sure you’ll deny.  And yes, there are other benefits, like parental satisfaction.

I understood your point the first time. Interesting but not credible. The idea that public schools outscore chater schools because charter schools have made all schools better doesn’t work because charter schools are a tiny % of schools and because American schools have not improved under the reform charters-testing regime as confirmed by the NAEP tests.

Should Student Progress be Used for Teacher Evaluation?  Unions Say NO. (page 1)

CD Howe Institute research on schools shows that 50% of student progress during a school year is due to the value-added effect of schooling – mainly good teaching.  That is why when CD Howe does school reports they factor out socio-economic status (SES) which accounts for 50% of the input and then they can rate schools which make a difference.

It is this value-added effect that is well known to Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, who is steering Obama’s program called Race To The Top.  Amongst the selection criteria for those requesting funding is proof that schools will use internationally benchmarked standards and assessments and use data systems that measure student success.  This data is to be used to inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices.  It is this feedback to teachers and principals that some teacher unions are resisting. Tying teachers to test scores is too scary for teacher unions.  Thus, some unions are refusing to sign federal funding applications by their districts.

Only 40 states have completed Round I of the process and no money has yet been awarded.  For a rather good discussion of the process and different points-of-view, see:  Concerns About Race To The Top http://education.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/whats-the-best-use-of-new-gran.php

The comment – cutting off your nose to spite your face – is appropriate here.  The obstruction of education reform by teacher unions is legendary and legion. They benefit, but not the consumers.  (AND, let me emphasize, it is not the average teacher who is generally opposed to reform.  It is the unions.)

But, there just may be a break in teacher union solidarity on the matter of teacher evaluations.  Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers has recently said that her union, the second largest in the US, is in favor of changing procedures for teacher dismissals.  She says, “Too often due process becomes a glacial process. We intend to change that.”  So, maybe there will be a break in the wall.  Maybe the totalitarian, undemocratic Berlin Wall of teacher union resistance to education reform will someday fall.  The sooner the better.

Weingarten asserts that standardized test scores and other measures of student performance should be an integral part of the evaluation process of teacher quality.  It’s still too soon to tell how far this will go.  A columnist for the NY Times, Bob Herbert ends his analysis of this development of last month (Jan 2010) thus: “If the union chooses not to follow through on these proposals, its credibility will take a punishing and well-deserved hit.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html

Should Student Progress be Used for Teacher Evaluation?  Unions Say NO. (page 2)

Speaking of credibility, I now come to Diane Ravitch.

Yes, Doug Little, long time ex-teacher unionist, lobbyist, blogger, progressive, socialist activist … etc. is right.  Diane Ravitch is four-square against this Obama effort to improve poorly performing public schools of America. You’ll see her opinion in the above first link I’ve provided.

Yes, and Charles Tysoe is right that Ravitch is contemptuous of parents.  In none of her writings or many presentations before commissions, hearings or panels has she ever said that parents have, or should have, an instrumental role in education of their children.  That is why she opposes any choice outside the monopolistic funnel of the public school system. She opposes charters, vouchers, tuition tax credits.  I expect she even opposes home education.

Now, about her credibility.  She not only endorses monopolistic public education, but she endorses progressive monopolistic public education.  She received the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) John Dewey Education Award in 2005.  John Dewey is the father of the progressive movement in education. (You know, social justice, self-esteem…)

Furthermore, she is a Director of the Albert Shanker Institute, which is funded and housed at the American Federation of Teachers headquarters in Washington, DC. Shanker, a Marxist, was the president of the AFT (1974-1997).  The Institute is dedicated to three themes – children’s education, unions as advocates for quality, and freedom of association in the public life of democracies.  The Institute is generally opposed to the reforms envisioned by RTTT.

This is an important issue and event.  It is worth watching for implications here.

Albert Shanker a Marxist, what a laugh, he was a neo-con.
Diane Ravitch was also chosen to be Under Secretary of Education UNDER GEORGE W BUSH. She has often been invited to speak by the Manhatten Institute and other conservative groups due to her critique of that which Tunya above escribes to her. Read Left Back if you doubt it.

I am not contemptuous of parents. I love Annie Kidder and all her friends, Loved Kathleen Wynne and Shelly Carroll when they were leading the parent movement in Toronto, love all the parents on the Campaign for Public Education. Tunya’s problem is that she equates “parents” with “conservative parents” . The vast majority of parents like the system much as it is. Of course they say it needs more money, support for the ELP, smaller classes, more resources, bigger gyms, more renovations, fewer portables, new science labs and of course I agree with them. That would take more money but Oregon has a unique solution to the problem. They just passed a ballot initiative to tax corporations and individuals making over $250 000 to make up the shortfall schools need. SWEET.

hyyp://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/

oops

http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/

Doug that link you gave is excellent, did you not read it or are you changing sides?

“Choice, in and of itself, won’t bring about the kind of systemic change that we need. But it is difficult to imagine how we can drive that systemic change without choice playing a role.” Joe Williams“

“School choice is an idea that should be supported in principle. It is good for parents to have a variety of schools from which to choose because not all children have the same needs or interests. The greater challenge is ensuring that there are many high-quality schools to choose from and ensuring that choice does not contribute to further segregation in schools.” Pedro Noguera

“This is an issue we can’t afford to ignore, however. The unions set out to create a standard of fairness for all teachers. The end result, in many cases, is a system that doesn’t allow itself to view great teachers any differently than it does mediocre teachers. Evaluations rate teachers as merely “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” As long as excellence is irrelevant in our schools, we will continue to be stuck in this holding pattern. Wouldn’t it be something if we could strive for systems filled with “excellent” teachers, where excellence actually means something?” Joe Williams

“An expanded federal role will allow our entire nation to cut through some of the political fog that has prevented good, sound ideas about how to change our schools from getting the go-ahead to proceed as part of a major systemic reform strategy. This is about using the tremendous leverage of the federal government to force some really blunt conversations at the state and district level, the kinds of conversations that make people uncomfortable and often lead to political paralysis. We have this tendency, if policy conversations make people feel uncomfortable, to sweep important issues under the rug. This is one of the reasons so little has actually changed despite waves and waves of reforms. We have an opportunity to change that dynamic, but only if President Obama holds firm on his commitment to bring change to public education.” Joe Williams

Some of the other articles are just as good, such as I never realized that (amongst the many union reasons) the school year isn’t extended into the summer months was the fact that the government would lose some tourism tax dollars.

I like the fact that this seems to be done without prejudice from either philological camp.
Bookmarked!

“The vast majority of parents like the system much as it is. Of course they say it needs more money, support for ELP, smaller classes, more resources…....”

No Doug they don’t. It’s only your love Kidder and her NDP led organization that’s championing the same lines as the teacher unions.

Kidder represents no parents - she’s said so herself in interviews. She speaks for no one but herself and to the converted left of the spectrum.

Ms. Kidder lands on the side of those other hypocrites who spew public education for others but make choices for their own children because they can.

You’ve likely forgotten that Kidder’s group and Wynne’s group had unfettered access to school boards thanks to their union affiliation? Right Doug?

One doesn’t win OSSTF Lump of Learning award without the union getting something in return, does it?

I laugh at the assumption that you wish all parents were seeing things your way, but, I know better.

The impetus behind vouchers and charters in America aren’t the rich cocktail socialists. It’s coming from the slums and the poor Doug. It’s also coming from educators.

To Mark, I thought some might be interested, I support public school choice. Private school choice is really a means of maintaining and buttressing the class system and works against equality of opportunity. The worst is giving public money to subsidize private choice. No accontability, subsidized eliteism.

Yes Mark, I read it and I am not converted to anything but it was a civil dialogue in a generally conservative journal. There are an incredible number of signatories to the Broader Bolder Group. If you read their manifesto they basically say that poverty is the problem and until America mitigates the worst aspects of poverty they can not expect much progress.

To my good friend Chuck, I think you realize that People for Education is composed of 95% parents and represents about 100 X the size of any conservative parents group. As to NDP, some is that illegal Chuck, but in fact most of them are either non-partisan progressives or Liberals. Of course I should keep in mind that to you that is all one vast left wing conspiracy.

You should see the sheer scale of their conferences Chuch. You would be impressed.

As to being a union stooge, Kidder for many years supported testing much to the unions displeasure but she is now turning against it because she can see that it narrows the curriculum and kills the arts.

Chuch (or Charles, I get you two mixed up) you will be very interested to see Diane Ravitch’s signature on the mission statement of the Broader Bolder Approach Group. This is the very high powered group that thinks that testing, especially NCLB is a major problem and that the root of almost all American education problems is poverty.

These are many of the biggest brains in American education. Check out their statement.

http://www.boldapproach.org

Why Should Teacher Unions Hold the KEYS to Education Reform? (page 1)

Thanks Doug, for the link: Poor Schools or Poor Kids? http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/

The second story to read on this issue is today’s Globe and Mail: Should Canada offer Merit Pay to Teachers ?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/should-canada-offer-merit-pay-to-teachers/article1458317/

Both these stories show how teacher unions are the main Block, Obstacle, Hindrance, Resistance, Deflecter, Staller, Barricade, Berlin Wall, Barrier, etc., etc. to education reform.  Why?

The first article, referring to circumstances in the US, asks this Question:

Q:  Are teachers unions and existing collective-bargaining agreements an impediment to school quality?

A (JW):  This is an issue we can’t afford to ignore … The unions set out to create a standard of fairness for all teachers. The end result, in many cases, is a system that doesn’t allow itself to view great teachers any differently than it does mediocre teachers. Evaluations rate teachers as merely “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” As long as excellence is irrelevant in our schools, we will continue to be stuck in this holding pattern. Wouldn’t it be something if we could strive for systems filled with “excellent” teachers, where excellence actually means something? We’re going to need a lot of help from the NEA and AFT in getting there, since they are holding the keys right now.

A (PN): Addressing the effectiveness of teachers must be an essential part of education reform in this country.

Why Should Teacher Unions Hold the KEYS to Education Reform? (page 2)

Coming back to Canada, the Globe and Mail article sets the scene and so far there are 120 comments.  I think we will see that the problem of teacher union blockades is the main obstacle to education reform here too.

Why should teacher unions hold the KEYS to education reform?  Because legislatures which have the power to do something are captured and blackmailed by the unions who for decades hold extra-ordinary and extra-parliamentary power.  Just as in BC, the teacher unions in Ontario and probably the rest of Canada can be called a parallel government in education.

It is shameful that our governance structures are so intimidated that corrective actions aren’t taken.  That’s what is expected of a central government.

Perhaps it’s time to get government out of education altogether.  The Finance Departments can handle the collection of taxes and apportioning entitlements to the students and their families via vouchers, tuition tax credits or other means. 

It’s not so much that teacher unions need to be tamed.  It’s the senior government that allows the unions their exceptional control that needs to be jump-started to do something or be eliminated from the operational part of schools.

spoken like a guy no nose:-)

The reason nobody in the teaching profession let alone their leaders supports “reform” was given in the Globe piece by the best teachers. 95% of teachers oppose merit pay plans even if they are built on top of existing contracts and that would go to 98% if it includes teacher evaluation by testing which was never designed to evaluate teachers.

They resist reform because they, like Diane Ravitch, believe the main tenents of reform, testing and privatization are evil and will hurt education, not just teachers, students. Those who promote such things are called “teacher bashers” inside the profession.

Teachers will fight to the death against these intrusions, in a Harris/Snobelen BILL 160 type confrontation and if it is forced on them they will quietly strangle reform in the closet while demonstrating that nothing changed or things got worse. Twenty years now of reform, vouchers, charters, NCLB in the USA and nothing to show for it.

When you attempt to reform education along lines that almost all teacher deplore and have failed elsewhere you better be ready for the coming conflagration.

Tim Hudak knows better than to pick those fights again I assume or even if he wins he will be a one term premier. The population has been clear. No fighting, we have no stomach for it and will punish the ones who appear to have started the fight. “We have to CREATE a crisis in education in order to change it.” John Snobelen, 1996 OMG.

Listen to the real experts in the USA

http://www.boldapproach.org

The issue is POVERTY.

If you are actually interested in improving teaching you need to listen to people like Linda Darling-Hammond, the authority in this area. If you are interested in punishing teachers, don’t bother.

What I actually said, was I don’t believe Ravitch shares Little’s contempt for Parents and non-educators.

And unlike Mr. Little she is well=informed on pedagogy and sound teaching method.  She may align with some of Little’s political views, but know it’s facile to speak merely in terms of political power.  Little believes on one sort of believer should have power and control over schools; left wing politicos, unions and only progressivist/constructivist doctrines at work in the classroom.

Ravitch not Favorable to Parents (page 1)

Much as we regard Diane Ravitch as a great historian of education in America we can’t forget that she has a particular slant.  She is not disinterested in the topic as academics should be. She has a bias and a fondness (and yes admiration) for the achievements of the teacher unions and progressive education reformers.

When she speaks she sounds like she has this whole sweep of history and insight behind her.  As if she can predict failure before it happens, she is four-square against charter schools.  She bases this on the evidence she selects.  There is contrary evidence that supports charters and their benefits, but in lofty tones she dismisses these.

She says charters are a form of privatization of education.  There you have it.  Her philosophy says:  All for education, education for all, and it all has to be state-run public schools!  No escapes, no options, no leakage!

I have yet to find one statement of hers anywhere that in any way endorses real and genuine engagement of parents or that parents should be instrumental in their children’s education.  This quote of hers seems to give some back-handed support for parents:

“I have not met all three million of our nation’s teachers, but every one that I have met is hardworking, earnest, and deeply committed to their students. All of them talk about parental lack of support for children…”

I think she sees this issue as an either/or situation.  She favors teacher control and not parent control.  That’s it.  I really wonder what has made her so sour and contemptuous about parents.  It sounds more personal than academic.  Somewhere she has been hurt; she is hurting because of parents … hmmm.

Ravitch not Favorable to Parents (page 2)

I’m really looking forward to Diane Ravitch’s new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System so that the rebuttals to her biases can be more focused.  She really wants this program Race To The Top to fail and she says she will be dealing with these issues in her book.  She says “…the fundamental principle of American education is, or is supposed to be, equality of educational opportunity, not a ‘race to the top’”.  In a pluralistic society, with children of multiple talents and needs, her attitude and that of here “fellow-travelers” just produces dumbing-down and mediocrity.

Nevertheless, on this thread, I would say that she and Doug Little are in the same camp.  They are both part of the machine that rules the education system.  They won’t give one inch on supporting the charter movement or teacher evaluations tied to student assessment or anything else that is evidence-based against their personal and vested-interest biases.

Education should be able to produce critical thinking based on evidence to help decision-making.  Parents should have the choice of which evidence-based philosophies and programs they can choose from.  We need to be aware of the enemies of reform who stall and delay choice because the evidence is lacking as to which one great system is going to win—and winner take all.

The proof is that many different philosophies, well grounded and accountable, can produce equally good results of well-educated citizens.  They don’t all have to come through the same pipe.

Of course people like Ravitch and I don’t give one inch on charters and teacher testing because they are very bad ideas. Students in charter schools do worsr than kids in public schools overall. Teacher testing and merit pay have failed many times before and been abandoned mant times before. The case against them is very strong.

Obama however is lumping some thinks under merit pay which could be the subject of negotiations. He wants to pay more to get excellent teachers to work in the worst schools. OK negotiate it. He wants to pay more to good teachers to mentor new teachers, we call them dept heads or PORs but OK negotiate it.

We have a system of free collective bargaining in Canada and the USA. If you want it, make it possible, negotiate it. It you cannot negotiate it then forget it.

Charter schools in the USA are unionizing at an amazing rate because the staff either leaves after 2 years, Teach for America types or decides that this is a career but the work hours are too long and they have no say. In Toronto we have literally dozens of alternative schools which I have taken part in establishing but they are subject to board and ministry policies and the union contract. If you want public money these are the conditions, period.

The idiocy of merit pay is well documented. Try:

http://www.alfiekohn.org

or

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

Value Added Scores – Promising Education Reform

In my earlier post of Feb 05 entitled “Should Student Progress be Used for Teacher Evaluation? Unions Say NO” I brought up the concept of the “value-added effect” of schooling.  Basically, it is the difference a teacher makes in the classroom in the school year.

CD Howe schools research factors out the socio economic status (SES) effect which amounts to 50 % of input and then says the remaining education progress of students is due to teaching – the value-added effect.

I think it is Eric Hanushek who describes it this way: 

- The excellent teacher can teach two years curriculum in one year.
- The average teacher teaches one year’s material.
- The poor teacher achieves zero, therefore the student is one year behind.

I had said in my comment that it was this effect that the Obama/Duncan program was trying to promote with their Reach To The Top federal funding.

The evidence is in that value-added evaluation works. It’s been known for over 10 years.  A generation of students!

What really bothers me is the conspiracy of silence which keeps this kind of information from coming forward to help people understand and press for appropriate change. I fault Education Faculties and Administrator groups. They know this material.  Why are they silent?

The unions, of course, are opposed to this kind of change because it can tie student evaluation to teacher dismissals. 

What REALLY bothers me is that these dogs-in-the-manger cause untold harm by their blocking of needed change.  Countless children are harmed and some are criminalized (in jail or dead) due to faulty education.  These are truly crimes against humanity.  Too bad we, the public and parents, can’t sue for this damage done and for misrepresentation.

The public school trustees too deserve a lot of blame for turning a blind eye and not raising alarms.

The Ministries of Education, with their stacks of researchers and access to the latest information, should be on top of best practice and implement it.

When the dust settles, and we finally get reform, I hope we will get some people and groups to repent and recant for their malfeasance—wrongful conduct by public officials. And there will be class action suits and tort settlements.

Please see this short video of a superintendent in Houston Independent School District saying how she uses value-added scores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaB6Pywe9CQ

You talk about value added scores as if that was something new. It is not, everybody understands it and also rejects it. There are many reasons why some classes make more progress than other classes even given that they are measured twice, one in September and once in May or June. Houston has been a mess for years and this must be at least the fourth time a plan like this has been tried in the last four years. Dannial Willingdon has explained over and over why these plans are nor reliable. We all understand exactly what you mean and the plans are still totally unreliable.

We have free collective bargaining in this country. If an plan is not acceptible to the teachers that is the end of it, it is an unacceptable plan. If you attempt to impose it you will have another Bill 160 style war on your hands that even Tim Hudak does not want. Lets face some facts here and stop dreaming. The tide is going out on testing, charters, vouchers and the nonsense they entail.

BTW the CD Howe Institute has about as much credibility as the Fraser Institute which is to say zero credibility in the education world. They are both far out in right field and set off the eye rolling every time they publish their privatization agenda ideology. Nobody is fooled.

Doug Little is the example of why it is so difficult to add accountability to the education sector and to improve teaching-so we are actually progressing and honouring empirical research-like a mad dog he shoots off leaving his stench everywhere and spreading his lies-you also alter Diane Ravitch`s statements so they suit your view.

The improvements for the sake of the clients-the tax paying parents are of no concern.
You belong in sports where winning is everything!

Read the intro to Diane Ravitch’s new book. She explains very well why she once had hope for education reform but is now totally against testing and choice. You will enjoy it.

The so-called accountability movement in education is the problem, not the solution.

Don’t you think mad dog is a little over the top Jo-Anne, stench, lies. Aren’t you getting a little personal there?

I have dedicated my life to educational improvement. I don’t happen to agree with your solutions. You will be interested to see Diane Ravitch’s name below on the list of experts in the USA who say poverty is the main problem.

http://www.boldapproach.org

You may be frustrated trying to convince the political class to move in your direction. That is not surprising since there are much bigger, much better financed organizations using much better research to persuade them to go in the opposite direction like the ELP and class size reduction for example.

Oh Jo-Anne, did you read that link I sent you that Canada has a 1% illiteracy rate according to the UN?

I know that discussion can get heated and frustrating at times, but may I remind all our readers to keep the debate civil and stick to the topic at hand.

Ultimatums are BAD Policy-Making

Let’s start with the statistical breakdown of inputs to education. If we can agree that it’s a near 50/50 relationship we can get somewhere. 

- 50%  Socio-economic status (SES), family income, parental aspirations, home support, neighborhood, etc.

- 50%  Value-added teaching (VAT), the whole school package – good teaching, extra support where needed, conducive climate for learning, sufficient resources, etc.

Then we can challenge the ultimatum approach to education:

The VAT side says, we can’t (won’t) do our part until:

- smaller class sizes
- no standardized testing
- teacher dismissals only after “glacial” due process
- all students are well-fed, not sleepy, well-clothed, that is, not poor
- all students have parents who read to them, encourage their homework, etc.
- etc.

We’ve seen these kinds of conditional arguments for far too long.  They are convenient excuses.  They are ultimatums that are a form of bullying in the play pen – if you don’t do it my way, I won’t play with you.

Sure poverty is a problem and a hindrance to good education, but don’t use that as a total excuse.  Don’t say until we eliminate poverty we won’t have good education.

Yes, we are grateful teachers are there to raise the alarm and alerts about suffering children.  This needs to be sent forward, via the principal, to parents and municipal authorities and school boards for help and charitable assistance.

But please, teachers and teacher unions, do your part in providing effective education. As Ron Edmonds, father of the effective schools studies, said so long ago:

“We can whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need, in order to do this. Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.” (Dr. Ron Edmonds, Harvard, 1978)

Teachers and teachers’ unions re not interested in blocking any progressive change to the education system. They know that even if none of the changes to the economic situation of students are made, progress can still be made. They may not agree that the situation is 50/50 between high quality teachers in most classrooms and the SES factors in children’s lives but they would acknowledge that having a high quality, motivted teacher in every class using expert teaching strategies is very very important.

On the other hand most teachers and most teachers’ organizations reject simplistic ides that all can be cured with a heavy emphasis on phonics or DI. As I have stated here previously, teachers see the job as high as highly eclectic with these two as only two strategies in a large tool box. They are STRONGLY predisposed to balanced literacy because that is where the perponderance of literature is. DI has a place but not a dominant place in the pedagogy pantheon.

When it comes to high quality teachers in classes we are all highly influenced by our American cousins in this regard but they have a much greater challenge than we do. There are huge areas in the USA, the south for example, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc where even qualified teachers are in the minority and math teachers are imported like guest workers from the Phillipines. There are huge swaths of inner city areas where good teachers are just worn out, tired of being assaulted, spit at, sworn at on a daily basis and when their seniority allows, head for the suburbs. The use huge numbers of Teach for America uncertified university kids to fill the gap but they to burn out after 1-2 years. They have an almost 300% turnover rate.

It is a major problem in the USA to put a qualified physics teacher in front of a physics class. They refuse to pay the wages that would be competitive to attract these folks and then scream that the teachers are not available.

We have nothing of this order of magnitude in Canada. That does not mean we do not have a problem in Canada. Of course we follow the most prominent leaders in teacher education like Linda Darling-Hammond who of couse points to Finland as the model of teacher education.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/study-pours-cold-water-on-performancebased-teacher-pay.html

Couldn’t say it better.

Performance based better than peer review
http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2010/02/11/peer-review-under-review/

He seems to be saying if you don’t sack enough people your system is not good enough.

There are an incredible number of young teachers who leave teaching during their first 5 years. Even though they leave of their own accord, these are often the people who recognize that “taching is not for them.” It is an incredibly demanding stressful job, one of the hardest and not everybody can take the demands. This takes the pressure off the need to dismiss people much later.

I have travelled the province defending teachers who were in trouble with their employers. The most common situation is a teacher mid 40s who has finally had a mental illness, depression usually, catch up with them. They often have a fine record of 15 years service and a file of achievements and positive reports in the past. Nobody quite knows how to handle these people. Is the illness temporary or permanent? Will a lighter load make it possible to stay? Will sick leave cover things until they are better? What about LTD? What about documentation?

Young teachers who are not up to the job usually leave or their principal or super, councel them out. Older teachers near retirement can usually patch together some combination of lighter load, sick days, LTD to make it to an early retirement. The big problem is in the middle with people with milder forms of “stress” it is usually called when everybody really means depression.