The video is very, very interesting and very touching.

Even though such a school works with “poor” students I am sure it will be attacked by the so-called progressives such as our old friend Mr. Little and Ms.Kidder as being demeaning to the poor students by asking them to work for schooling.

If that doesn’t work, then next line of attack is going to be that the school is elitist since it doesn’t admit anyone who wants to attend.

Well done on ‘The Agenda’, Doretta. 
It’s pretty easy to see why Annie Kidder and whatshername (the woman who teaches at the faculty of ed) don’t want to see schools branching out and specializing—it’s the first step towards competition, which they both loath (did you hear Annie’s tirade when eqao’s test scores were trotted out?).  Competition will end the cozy easy life at faculty of ed because when competition comes it will have to change with the times and therefore begin producing graduates who are effective teachers.  Annie’s reason for not wanting competition/a better education for children—who knows what goes on in Annie’s mind

As I was watching the Agenda, it appeared to me that the other participants were all too willing, to dance around the subject of low-income students, and shift the focus back to their own private agendas. I am not against schools that are meant for low-income students, such as the Preuss Charter School or the Christo Rey schools, because they are not only well-structured to meet the needs of their students, but also teaches important knowledge on how to conduct oneself in the wider community. Learning how to dress, knotting a tie, hygiene, speaking using proper grammar, are all things that become very useful when navigating the world. It is another area that went bye-bye along time ago in public education, that really should be brought back to teach children early on, the ways of the world especially how the upper classes conducts themselves, in society.

The Niagara School Board, certainly went about it the wrong way, but there was also poor planning on their part, especially when they took the approach of only copying bits and pieces of the Preuss Charter School, where transportation was one of the key elements, for the successful implement ion of the Preuss school. And they certainly have a comprehensive bus schedule, that covers not only the inner San Diego, but as well as the outer regions of San Diego. Of course the location of the school, being part of the local university campus, made it that much more attractive to low-income students wanting to attend, because it was not just a carbon copy of another inner low-income school, but rather the look of a prestigious private school, with all the bells and whistles, including a full program of sports. I bet that the Preuss school,  has a reputation as being hard to beat, when it comes to sporting events, but than again I do think that all schools should have a competitive sports program. And not the type of programs that exist today in most schools, where sports take a back seat, because of the lack of funding.

my 2cents on The Agenda

1) I wondered if Kidder was ever going to fly away off screen - what with all of the flapping of her arms. As usual she uses a lot of words to say pretty much nothing of interest to me.

2) what was VERY CLEAR to me, and I believe Steve hinted at it re: Kidder’s emphatic “NO!!!” to is very first question of the night to her on whether she agreed with the Niagara school idea, was that she did in fact between all of the flapping and giggling prove that she wasn’t as against the idea as her “NO!!!” suggested.

3) Coulter was her usual public-education supporting self. It’s what I’ve come to expect from her. Although I did notice that she said the phrase “I support public education” as if she was trying to remind herself of that.
She agreed more than a few times with Doretta and the young OISE fellow which tells me even she’s not as against the whole Niagara school as she let on.

4) the young OISE fellow - got the most digs in and won the night because 1)he’s new 2)he’s young and 3)he’s using phrasing and touching on points we haven’t heard in plain language before.

5) Doretta - steady and supportive of SQE directions. A good job of staying true to those.

Two things capture what I felt at the end of the program

1) there’s cracks in the usual arguments from the entrenched views of Coulture/Kidder types.

2) Doretta and OISE guy - dominated and won the discussion based on facts but the general feeling of all participants and Pakin on this issue was - Wait and See.

Yes, I noticed that Coulter and Kidder did waffle, and while listening to the debate, I got the impression that a shift is occurring and that these ladies’ ‘facts’ don’t carry the weight that they used to, so at times (arms flailing) they even had to contradict themselves.
Also, during the debate, several times Doretta alluded to the fact that, if there were sound teaching methods in place, this school under discussion wouldn’t be necessary.
As usual the whole thing will be poorly planned, but it’s better than nothing. 
At this new school in the Niagara region, there will be a lot of extra time and money that will have to be spent because of necessary turoring (which they already said would be put in place) and this is because of poor teaching practises—not because kids can’t learn.
Poor teaching methods are costing taxpayers a lot of extra money—like the proposed school & extra money for tutoring, but what’s far worse is the trememdous damage it’s doing to the next generation.

Bev - I don’t think that either Coulter or Kidder realizes that even though they initially said “No!!!” or “I support public education”(para.) that their arguments said “well, um, maybe”.  Which to me is a clear climb down from their usual.

Chuck-I enjoyed reading your post-I saw the show and could not have articulated the outcome nearly as well.

Bravo Doretta.

I have watched the debate video posted on TVO.

Maybe I was expecting too much .. but my impression was “so what”?
The language used was so vague that it could mean anything.

The only interesting parts for me were that
a) The debaters were referring to the current system as being too rigid, too standardized ?! :-((
b) The discussion came back again and again how the current system does not work well for children from disadvantaged backgrounds; the implication being that the others are doing very well.
Very well? Really? Compared to what?

Any debates about the current education system are concerned with poor children, minority children, children with disabilies and these are valid concerns.
That being said, nobody seems the least inclined to raise the issue of normal, average children that the system is dumbing down and that at the end of elementary school in my opinion know much less than their counterparts in other countries.
They would be perhaps simpler and more cost effective to save.
There exists a censorship, a self-censorship and a a pressure against any ideea of excellence, merit, or hard work because being better is elitist.

“There exists a censorship, a self-censorship and a a pressure against any ideea of excellence, merit, or hard work because being better is elitist.”
Europe, the teachers’ union spawned the above years ago when they became too powerfull.  To some degree it’s still working well, and it gets parents to back off. 
Again, the debate showed me that there is a shift taking place, and I’m glad to see that it’s not as bad as it was—i.e.:  Coulter and Kidder peddling backwards more than once.  A few years ago that never would have happened.

Sorry, I sounded very negative. I realize it is a victory in itself that Doretta participates and the SQE is recognized as an important voice.

It is the lack of any kind of sense and logic that drives me off the wall.
If an alternative school is started and asks certain students to attend it is wrong because you force people. If the same alternative school lets parents choose then it doesn’t prove anything because by the people that make the choice are the better ones and therefore the school creams the best.

If an alternative school is tried because the current school system is not working for certain students it is wrong because it doesn’t help all of them.

The most polite description for the above would be illogical, irrational thinking. I mean, because you are taller than I am I should cut out your head or force you to walk hunched because I was unlucky to be born shorter?

Dear Europe,

I agree.The voice of reason and logic has no place in bureaucracy and politics.

It reminds me of my visit to the cognitive psychology division of OISE August 2009.Dr.Stanovich`s old stomping grounds.

“How do you feel we should teach Reading?Answer-same as you.
“Why don`t you tell the teacher training arm of your research and conclusions so they can change the way they train teachers?
We did-the building is divided.
“Why don`t you tell the Ministry of Education?”
Oh Jo-Anne,that`s just politics.

A little bit like the OJ Simpson trial-don`t look for justice,it`s not there.And,don`t look for “reason"it`s missing in action.

Europe and Jo-Anne, I agree completely with both of you.  The whole thing is ridiculous, but it’s better than nothing, and as I said earlier, it’s creating cracks in the stone walls educrats have built over the decades with taxpayers’ $$  I hope that some children will benefit from this school, and it will create comparisons, which all educrats, from every level it seems, are loath to see happen. 
When I came back from Asia, I was utterly shocked at how self-serving and dysfunctional the educational system was, however 20 years ago, most people supported teachers’ unions and bought the rhetoric.  This is changing, and as woefully inadequate and self-serving our current system is, slowly the shift is occurring.  When one has had so little they’ll settle for anything.  I just wish things would move along much faster   I’d love to see children thrive in our educational system like I did in Asia—there’s no such thing as a stupid kid

It is very difficult to have a four-way discussion on TV without constantly interrupting (which we are told not to do, at least not TOO much   ). 

The more crucial point that I would have liked to have expanded on, was that a one-sized public school does not work for a large section of kids and at the same time, trying to be all things to all people doesn’t work either.  Secondly, if we’re getting it all wrong for those kids that need a different teaching approach—then why aren’t we doing the preventative medicine in the first place.  Although, I think I did touch on that one, it went over the heads of the other panelists.

I would have liked to call Dr. Coulter on her comment that the DSBN Academy application form was full of middle-class wording. (Paikin did ask her what that meant)  I felt it was a bit condescending—-implying just because you were less affluent, you couldn’t figure out how to fill out a form. 

It’s not the first time I’ve heard similar comments like that—-Sort of along the lines that low income parents need to take parenting classes.  (Lord knows how any of us grew up with the parents we had!)

The time goes by quickly and, naturally, my most brilliant rebuttals come to me in the car on the way home!