Auditions do not belong in public schools. If there are not enough seats it should go local first and lottery second. Auditions are elitist.

The great project of public education from Horace Mann on has been Equality of opportunity. Auditions favour those who have had private lessons.

I want the system to be geared to Equality of Outcomes AKA Equality of Results, a more modern manifestation of Equality of Opportunity. Of course “individual” results will always be different but we need to work towards the day when achievement results show no differences by class, race, gender, ethnicity etc.

Programs that offer favouritism towards select groups of students are not a good idea. They postpone equality, which along with excellence, are the twin pillars of public education.

Finland demonstrates that a priority towards equity results in excellence since the bottom is always brought up so the average achievement levels are higher than those places that neglect their low achievers such as the USA.

I agree with Doug—places in these speciallized schools which are supported by tax dollars should be done by lottery; not auditions.

In my opinion, there should be enough places in specialized schools to allow all comers to enroll in them. I think that the role of auditions should be to determine placements.

“Auditions do not belong in public schools.”

Than allow me to introduce you to the MANY Schools for the Arts within the public system that DO require auditions, portfolios, interviews with parents. 

Global Toronto ran a piece this week about a school within the TDSB for elite athletes.

The fact that some DO exist does not mean they OUGHT to exist.

People pay the same public taxes. This ought to entitle them to the same public schools as much as possible. Some ought not to get enriched services as compared to others.

When it’s a choice between a child destined to mediocrity or being supported by individual attention and focus on where their strengths lie that public schools are recognizing the need to compete with their private counterparts on that score is NOT surprising to me.

As was suggested elsewhere here, it looks to be how the TDSB is saving half-empty schools…by offering choice to those who wish it.

” But the lack of profit motive doesn’t explain why parents meekly accept the imaginary capacity limitations imposed by the school boards.”

Well trained from the start, to accept the limitations imposed by the school boards, When something different comes along, the parents have the opportunity to increase their children’s chances of having a better quality education, as well as protecting the long term futures of the children.

Auditions should be to determined placement, and not as it is now, being the main determining factor to enter the lottery. To increase equality and equity, have enough seats for all of the students, using the auditions to determined placement.

Most parents will not attempt enrollment of a specialized school, if they do not think their children have a special interest or a talent in some aspect of the arts. However, I can see hundreds of parents standing in line for a chance to have their child go to a arts school that is perceived by many as being higher quality than the standard box school and lower quality programs in the arts. As I could see myself, standing in another line-up for a chance for my youngest child, to enroll in a school for athletes. I may not like it, but it is better than the typical school, with the watered-down athletic programs, as well as the decline in physical activities in our schools.

It provides a shot for an education opportunity that advances the best interests of the child, rather than advancing the agendas within the education system, and their one-sized-fits-all approaches that meets the requirements of equality, but not the equity measures, which places caps on the individual students’ potential.

As was suggested elsewhere here, it looks to be how the TDSB is saving half-empty schools…by offering choice to those who wish it.

There are various motivations behind the TDSB (and TBE before that) alternatives direction. Many parents want pedagogical alternatives although I must say that almost all want to be far more “Deweyist” than the TDSB system. There is zero demand for a traditional school. Some will say “the TDSB never tried”. It does not work that way. People come to the board with ideas not the other way. They need lists of signatures demonstrating interest.

I see director Chris Spence’s finger prints all over these new efforts and Dan is right it is to fill space caused by declining birthrate-enrolement although that is turning around now.

In secondary some teachers have initiated some schools mainly as dropout recovery efforts. Also very Deweyist.

I supported many and opposed a few over the years based on the “devil being in the details” some times.

Bev, I disagree with you, if it is an art school specialized in music then by all means admission should be done by auditions.

Same should apply to any specialized programs. The students with the best mastery of the prerequisite skills should get admitted.

Why does everybody hate competent, hard working students?

If a student worked harder, longer and therefore knows more then in the name of “equality” he has to have the exact same chances for more challenging work as the student who has not cared, has not worked harder and has not mastered the skills?

What happened to merit to recognizing and encouraging achievement?

There should be more specialized progams not fewer and admissions to them should be transparent and based on the mastery of the prerequisite skills.

Europe, I see your point.  With regards to an arts school, most children who would be required to audition, would have had lessons thanks to their parents—in other words, they have opportunities many other children don’t.  That’s why, in my opinion, a lottery system would be ideal—to equalize.  As Malkin has said, there should be enough spaces for all, and so a lottery system isn’t a perfect solution, but personally, I’d rather see disadvantaged children given an opportunity. 
I agree with your statement that hard-working students don’t get recognized.  I think that the IB is good for that, since they have to begin grooming the students for this programme (which are international standards) while they’re still in grade school.
In the late 50’s and into the 60’s when I attended a public school (one of the poorest in Windsor, Ontario), there were bands, music classes, art and auditorium & library classes taught by teachers specializing in these areas.  There were, swimming pools, huge home economic classrooms, a science lab, and a full-time nurse.  There was no bullying—no one dared!  We were all literate—children failed and there were city-wide exams one had to write in order to pass into the next grade.  Kindergarten teachers btw, had to be able to play the piano, so you could always hear music and singing coming from their classrooms.  50+ years later, where does the money go nowadays?  Inflated salaries; gold-plated pensions and benefits; shorter working hours (prep time); specialized teachers (needed because of poor teaching methods); layered burearcracy at both the moe and board levels.  Public education has become totally self-serving.  Many boards can’t even supply proper textbooks, and there are user fees galore.  This is robbing our children and our society, and this kind of self-serving greed will eventually cause our civilization to collapse.  Government-run monopolies no longer work.

Bev, I see your point about providing opportunities for the disadvantaged children.
In Toronto I there is for sure one - Claude Watson -, perhaps two elementary schools that have a music and dance program, so that students learn this skills in school. The solution to being equitable would be not to dumb down the admission requirements but to provide more opportunities in elementary school if there is a demand for them.

Since music is important to relatively few, I think the more important thing about equality of opportunity is that in elementary school children get taught well IN SCHOOL and that in order to achieve decent results they don’t have to have tutoring.

Because the quality of the teaching and texbooks is so low on average a student from a disadvantaged background stands no chance of finishing elementary school with a solid mastery of skills.

While there are still a few good teachers around, based on what I hear a student on average gets to have a good teacher only once every 3 or 4 years. In elementary, when they are still so young and get turned off easily that pretty much guarantees that in the absence of consistent teaching at home or consistent tutoring a student not only will have big gaps in skills but will also have a bad attitude towards most subjects along the lines of “I’m not good at math” or “French is stupid”, “English is boring” or the universal “It doesn’t matter anyway, whatever”.

Regarding IB, I heard through the grapewine, I don’t know it is true or not that even though only very good students want to attend and then get selected the attrition rate is of about 50% in GTA. That is from the students admitted in grade 9 in the pre-IB programs, who in general have grades of at least low 90’s, most of them in mid and high 90’s and a lot of whom have attended gifted programs only 50% graduate with an IB diploma.

I tried to find statistics about the above but I couldn’t. If anybody has any suggestions as to how to go about finding such statistics I think they would be interesting.

As far as I could find out from other parents who have sent their kids to a specialized high school program in Arts they did not do so because they or their kids were necessarily passionate about Arts, it was because these schools seeem to be better environments overall: the students are disciplined and well behaved and the academic level tends to be higher while not as demanding as in other specialized programs.

By the way, since the high school arts programs in music are about band or string music, they admit not necessarily students highly skilled in music but students who can play the instruments in band or string ensembles. So a student playing the tuba or trombon even at a mediocre level may have a better chance than a student playing well a more common instrument.
Students highly skilled in playing the piano or the guitar have no chance because there is no demand for piano or guitar (which are the instruments most kids take private lessons in).

So yeah, if a parent is familiar with this twisted logic well in advance, maybe he can pay for tuba lessons.
The question then becomes which are the groups familiar with this twisted logic well in advance so that they can take advantage of it?

Bev, I disagree with you, if it is an art school specialized in music then by all means admission should be done by auditions.

It is a PUBLIC school. People pay the same taxes based on their ability. Therefore the system should not “advantage” some students over others. If you want “advantages” for your child over other children then go private. The point of public schools is to narrow gaps, not to widen them at taxpayers expence.

Ok, then let’s have admissions to all high schools by lottery.

Why should people buy their children a place in the high school they want?

Why is it ok for some high schools such as Northern Secondary for example to have specialized programs that no student outside the cachement area can access but we have to have a lottery for a specialized arts program? Parents that want the arts program and whose kids are skilled enough to do well in auditions have paid exactly the same taxes as the parents whose kids attend Northern Secondary.

Why can’t my child go to any high school I prefer for him? I pay the same taxes.

A few years I wanted my child to attend a specialized elementary program. I couldn’t. Attendance was based on cachement area. I pay the same taxes.

While no system is perfect, a system where students starting high school can choose any high school and get in based on MERIT and COMPETENCE is the fairest of all because it achieves several things:

a) It emphasizes that one’s path in life is determined by hard work and mastery and not by luck

b) It sets the correct expectations about how real life works for all the students

c) It gives all students an incentive to work harder, thus increasing the overall level of achievement

d) It provides feedback on the difference in quality across different elementary schools.

And by all means, if students need help to get up to par, let’s do it in elementary school when it’s much more effective rather than hope for miracles in high school.

We could start with expecting and helping all the students to read by the end of grade one.

While no system is perfect, a system where students starting high school can choose any high school and get in based on MERIT and COMPETENCE is the fairest of all because it achieves several things:

Buy a house in the neighbourhood where the school is, they have to take you. If you cannot afford it rent. The TDSB busts a gut to accomodate everybody. The local kids must come first however. There should be no auditions. It is unfair for some to pay for expensive tutorials to get a leg up in a public school.

I know the TDSB inside out. I sent my kid to ordinary neighbourhood schools in Toronto and Ottawa.

This whole motivation behind the idea that I must give my kid some kind of advantage in education is not very edifying. How are we suppose to “close the gap” when everyone wants an advantage for their kid.

I would convert French Immersion to Extended French for everyone and kill IB outright.

Policy must be made on the basis of what lifts up the whole student body, not what gives my kid some kind of advantage.

“This whole motivation behind the idea that I must give my kid some kind of advantage in education is not very edifying. How are we suppose to “close the gap” when everyone wants an advantage for their kid. “

Doug, the nature of the family unit will always work towards providing an advantage as you put it, but it is really providing for the individual needs of the children within the income and values held by the parents. Closing the gap as you have put it, is suggesting to parents that what they provide are advantages over and beyond the local education system can provide. For a family, it is the individual children needs that come first, and is in direct conflict with the public’s education motto of providing for the whole student population, and the individual student learning needs becomes secondary, and in some cases it is at the bottom of the school’s list.

I highly doubt it parents who pay for tutoring lessons on the basics, or do the home tutoring see it as an advantage over and above, but rather a way to provide for the individual needs of their children, as well as following the values held in high esteem by the parent(s).  Private and home tutoring often has been cited by the public education system as giving students an unfair advantage over other students who do not receive outside tutoring. Unfair advantage?  No, but private tutoring is a response from the parents to protect the long-term futures of their children, as well as to raise their achievement over the perceived lower standards of the public education system.

Doug, what you want to do is to prevent parents from looking after the best interests of their children, and replace it with the public education system where the collective group needs always come first, over the individual needs. In essence, you are advocating to widen the gaps, because the very nature of the family, will be to work for the best interests of their family, as well as the individual needs of their children.

It is when the public education system works in tandem to suppressed the very nature of the family working to the best interests of their children, and get the families to work for the best interests of the collective, the education system. is asking for the public to accept lower standards, because it is good for the whole collective and society.

Somehow, asking parents to accept the 50 something average of their children, because it is good for the collective whole, is asking parents to become glorified babysitters, When the glorified babysitter, decides to give a leg up to their children, it now becomes an unfair advantage working against the collective whole, the public education system.

Choice is rapidly becoming the solution, because it eases the conflicts between the collective and the individual users, as well as increasing the levels of higher standards within the public education system. and increasing focus on the individual learning needs as opposed to the collective whole.

It should start with the public education system, demanding all students should with fluency and proficiency to read, write and do numeracy well. Perhaps than, parents would not work so hard to give their children advantages, when the public education system is doing a good job providing for their children’s education needs.

The collective wellbeing is not the sum total of individual wellbeing. I had one daughter, I sent her to neighbourhood schools. I helped her with homework. I was not “driven” to find advantages for her.

Policy makers, MOE, boards, politicians should not make policy for public schools in order to advantage the children of some families vs other families.

The policy of public officials ought to focus on aiming almost all priorities at bringing up those who are behind as individuals or by class, race whatever. Look at what our low priority for Aboriginal education has meant for our First Nations.

Finland concentrates primarily on bringing up those behind for any reason rather than shooting the already advantaged ahead. This is why they have higher average results. They are the living proof that placing the priority on equity leads to mass excellence.

Families will try for “advantages”. Policy makers ought not to cater to those whims.

Collective 1st, individual 2nd for national advancement.

But they do Doug, and often the policies are made to create disadvantages for students of lower achievement, students with disabilities, low-income, to blocked any real achievement for this set of children, based on the current instruction practices, curriculum and teacher training. The students are left in the hands of the classroom teacher, or as some would say at the mercy of the teachers, and it becomes extremely difficult for teachers to suspend their beliefs and values, on the education potential of children. Much of it is all over the place, and all negative to the hard to teach, that provides all the excuses to continue on using the same practices, producing the same results.

Most children with disabilities have not been served well, and as well as the low-income children plus the aboriginal communities. What makes anyone think judging form the historical past, that keeping the instruction, curriculum and training practices the same, will produced higher achievement, by changing the focus on funding to the students at risked?  Dumbing down the education will not do it, as it is practice in the SE classrooms, aboriginal communities and narrowed focus on the 3 Rs in the low income schools. Nor by taking away the resources of the general student population, and than expecting parents to pick up the costs that the schools no longer covers.

The public education system is a system composed of many tiered levels of education. It became many tiers, because the powers to be decided that a basic education is according to the SEC factors, rather than the individual learning needs of the child. As my 16 year old said the other day in response to an article that I was reading, “Don’t they know we are all built and equipped with the same brains, the same biological needs, and the only differences lie with student’s learning differences…....................and she went on, saying they think that the low achievers all come from Mars.” It was a rant, in response to all the good things happening in the public education system in another province. She was insulted, because it has not been her experience, and she has worked too hard to overcome the realities of attending a public school, that rather labeled her, than get on with the hard work of addressing the individual’s needs of students.