I agree with Malkin 100%. Have I mentioned Finland? Proof positive that a society based on cooperation and equity is more efficient AND fairer than a society based in competition and income polarization for both the schools and society.

A very manipulative posting,there`s nothing in your statement that agrees with Malkin,who are you kidding?

Which differences and similarities count when it comes to learning?

One small point. The American school districts are generally much smaller. The suburban and rural boards did not do the amalgamation we have done in waves since the mid 1960s.
Then you ask, does school district size made a difference- in learning? in getting the learning bang for the amalgamation buck?

I have no definitive answer.

Surely even with similarities with the US when we hear about the latest “fix” regardless of what is is we need to ask
can we / should we
- adopt it as is
- reshape it to fit Canadian or regional or local needs?
- leave it alone since it does not apply?

there are examples of being successful with each of the above directions
and unfortunately
example of thoughtless choices

food for thought

“So we will continue to write about American (and Canadian and international) phenomena - while doing our best to make sense out of what is inevitably an imperfect example.”

Agreed, but it should come with critical analysis taking in all facets. That said, what is neglected is the power structures of the education systems, that can put an excellent policy into an unsuccessful policy and as well as promote policy that is narrowly focused without mind to the power structures. At the end of the day, it reduces quality of education for students and their futures.

Yesterday, I came across two articles, where the powers within the the K-12 system, dismisses the post-secondary professors, as well as the post-secondary students on the elementary and secondary levels of students lacking the necessary foundation in the maths and the sciences.

Finland in 2005 - “Severe shortcomings in Finnish mathematics skills”
http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/KivTarEng.html

“One reason for the increase of poor standards in the matriculation exam and in the beginning of university studies is, undoubtedly, the weakness of the foundation received in the comprehensive school. New, more difficult concepts are hard to learn because still in upper secondary school much energy is spent in reviewing concepts that should have been learned in the comprehensive school. This vicious circle continues in tertiary education: the high-school concepts are not properly learned, and further learning becomes more difficult. The PISA survey provides us with useful information regarding the mathematical literacy needed in everyday life and the ability to solve simple problems. These skills are simply not enough in a world which uses and utilizes mathematics more and more. “
http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/PisaEng.html

Sounds familiar?  Apparently it is world-wide according to the professors at the post-secondary institutes. And I confirmed it, combing through the European articles as well as a few Asian articles raising the quality of students and downward spiral of students not being prepared for STEM studies at the post secondary level, because they lack the foundation needed. Also European students have signed petitions across Europe, indicating their displeasure at taking remedial courses at the post-secondary level, on things that should have been taught.

In 2006, in part - “We are angry. We see that we really can not function at the university level. Situations occur everyday where we find we have had too little math during high school. Because of this we have to take remedial courses, or even quit our studies. We hear that complaint from our teachers, but what can we do? We wish we had had more math in high school.

Now you are busy renovating education. Good idea! But we heard that you plan to give even less math. If you go ahead with that, then the new students soon won’t understand anything! It seem like a better idea to just give more math! We hope that you will consider this.

Sincerely,

10,000 students (mathematics, physics, and computer science)”

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://www.lievemaria.nl/?pid=wiesteunenons

Just press the logo of livemaria, to see the actual statement made by 10,000 Dutch students.

What is shared world wide among the many various education systems, are the power structures, to which the quality of students’ education takes the hit, on being prepared with the necessary skills and abilities after leaving the secondary level. Because no one within the public education system, nor are the politicians and the reformers that lie outside of the education system wanting in, are ready to commit to work on the singular goal of preparing all students on the skills and abilities needed in the 21st century, because it would upset the power structures of the education system, and cause too much grief among the stakeholders within the education system.

Comparisons are fine, but one should keep in mind what works for one country, may not be effective because the power structures differs enough, to rendered it useless. But more importantly, quality of students’ education is fast becoming a trigger in the European states, as they too are copying reforms that have taken place in NA, that have only added more angst, and promoted further erosion of access and lower education preparedness of the secondary students.

The common factor are the teachers’ faculties worldwide, who are the decisive power broker, on what is and what will not be taught in the K to 12 system. Apparently the awful math curriculum found in NA, is also found in the European countries. Ditto for the NA teachers’ faculties for being the decisive power broker in the K to 12 curriculum and practices. At least here there is no differences concerning the power structures unlike the funding structures and many other differences that makes comparisons hard to turn into policy.

Nancy states “The common factor are the teachers’ faculties worldwide, who are the decisive power broker, on what is and what will not be taught in the K to 12 system.”.

I have taught and worked in half a dozen of these in four provinces and three countries.
I did not feel all-powerful then, and certainly do not now.
The statement has no evidence to back it.
On the contrary there is considerable evidence here and in the U.S. that what we do here gets “washed out” part way through the second year of teaching.
And speaking from experience in these various jurisdictions, having been asked by ministries of education for input into new curriculum and also having co-authored a research study looking at curriculum reform in half a dozen English speaking countries in the area of social studies education, we have little say as the major decisions are made before we get our shot.
These decisions are done for good or ill at the political level.
Ben Levin has documented this and has considerable experience in the political as well as the education level.
If one dismisses him as an “educrat”, shame on them—they have committed the genetic fallacy. He offers evidence.

So, Nancy’s statement is factually incorrect.

Stand outside from the education system, and look in. The education faculties has the control of the teacher training, what is being taught and what is being done, with little if any outside influence from the political system, and any undue influence from other parts of the government. The influences come from within the public education system and its many agendas.

If a teacher faculty wanted to, within 5 years or so, could change the whole reading instruction and the pedagogy that comes with it. but what prevents it to, is the power divisions, and the influences within the public education system. Current example is the math curriculum, the crazy poor sloppy math curriculum that is the cause of students not having the skills to do post-secondary math in the STEM subjects, as well as the required math in the social sciences. It would not matter, if every post-secondary professor outside of the education faculties in the world,  signed a petition, demanding better math curriculum to prepare the high school students, for the rigors of post-secondary work, The whole system, right down to the teachers will dismiss it as criticism from the outsiders, at the very least. But dismiss they will, and proceed on course, as the math curriculum is torn asunder since the 1990s, to followed whatever pedagogy is ruling the roost,

As for the politicians, no matter the country, they try to control the lower levels of the public education system, and the lower levels have far less power and influence over their own environment, let alone seek change at the upper levels. So John, what are you going to do in a classroom, where 90 % of the students are attending private math tutoring lessons, or any other outside private help, to overcome the terrible math curriculum of no math, including the elimination of the efficient methods?  Within the education system, they dare not asked the question in the higher income schools, But John, just asked the private tutors or see their profit sheets.

One has to wonder why, the curriculum and teacher practices are set up in such a way, to allow big gaps in the necessary knowledge needed to attempt post-secondary studies. In NA, the graduate programs are filled with international students from the Asian countries, leaving 25 percent for the native born Americans or Canadians. Engineer programs are suffering, as well as the sciences, and they too welcome the international students as well.

John the power is within the education system, and the major stakeholders. The bottom levels have far less power and influence, and more or less follow the edicts without much protest from within. As individual teachers, students come and go, but the gaps of students remains and festers as the years go by. The stakeholders within the system, are much too interested in looking out for their best interests, to be bother about the growing and widening knowledge gaps of their students. But the education system will defend and protect their turf against the outsiders. Provide the ready-made excuses prepared by the higher levels of the education system, to defend curriculum and instruction methods. For the most part, the excuses place blame on the students, and the public, and whatever outside environmental factors that can be attached.

As for the individual teachers, their power lies within the union, to keep their best interests in front of everybody else, within and outside of the system. The only power that a teacher has, is to close the door of his or her classroom, but than the teacher runs the risk of losing her or his job, or at the very least, questions from the administration. The ordinary teachers don’t go to the fancy conventions of the high level educrats to talk shop. When they do go down to the lower levels, it is to talk at them, and not an exchange of information. Much the same way, when school boards talk to parents, they talk at them, and never an exchange of information.

As for the washing out effect of teacher training, the values of the ideology and dogma taught, is far lasting, which actually prevents teachers from viewing teaching from the science, and not from a philosophical viewpoint. How many teachers think that drills and practice are drill and kill?  The majority, since the responses for the reasons are based on the thoughts of Dewey-speak and other philosophical bits and pieces based on the teacher training,  stating students become bore, does not developed deep understanding and other related phrases. Where is the science?  Being put to good use outside of the public education system. .

John,

I have witnessed,heard and observed Dr.Ben Levin`s view on reading instruction.
I can assure you,in my view,that anyone who ignores the important research available to us today and even originated in Keith Stanovich`s lab on the 3rd floor at OISE many years ago has to be called an educrat.His view and voice have been more important than research that`s empirical and widely accepted but ignored.

John,if what you say is true and pedagogy is politically driven,it must have to do with corporate ties with the publishers-certainly,effectiveness and the ignoring of important research doesn`t make any rational sense.

The problem Nancy is that you and other rank amateurs presume to tell professionals with PhDs in reading, what works and what doesn’t work.

You are in WAY over your head.

Joanne questions if pedagogy is politically driven, and makes the connection between corporate ties.and pedagogy.

It got me thinking, that pedagogy in itself is political. Its very nature screams political, but I decided to check.

From Columbia University:
“1. That the traditional classroom is a site of power, privilege, and hierarchy.
2. That teaching is a political act, instructors are political agents, and the methods of instruction, choice of readings, nature of the assignments, and forms of assessment have political and ideological significance.
3. That traditional approaches to teaching diminish student agency, limit the number of perspectives that are raised, marginalize students who don’t conform to certain norms, and unduly separate the classroom from the real world.”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/tat/pdfs/progressive.pdf

“Refusing to decouple politics from pedagogy means, in part, creating those public spaces for engaging students in robust dialogue, challenging them to think critically about received knowledge and energizing them to recognize their own power as individual and social agents. Pedagogy has a relationship to social change in that it should not only help students frame their sense of understanding, imagination, and knowledge within a wider sense of history, politics, and democracy but should also enable them to recognize that they can do something to alleviate human suffering, as the late Susan Sontag (2003) has suggested. “
http://www.henryagiroux.com/online_articles/DarkTimes.htm

“Put differently, formal spheres of learning provide one of the few sites where students can be educated to understand, engage critically, and transform those dominant spheres of public pedagogy that are largely shaping their beliefs and sense of agency.”
http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/files/giroux_public.pdf

The answer is pedagogy is the means to to politicized the education of children, and not the end game of educating children to think through the politic lens, rather than provided children with a well rounded education. As a parent, I never thought the act of reading instruction, is a political act, and nor did I think the act of toilet training as a political act. But from the many readings on the education pedagogy literature, I no longer have to wonder why our adult youth, do not have a solid foundation in the 3 Rs, because it is not in sync with the current political ideology within the pedagogy.

PHDs in reading - or would that be in the education system, PHD as describe on a BC site, “Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Literacy Education (PhD)”
Otherwise known as Language and Literacy Education in the teachers’ faculties.

I may be an amateur Doug, but I certainly open the eyes of the PHD educators that I have had run-ins, They could not argued with me on the success and steady progression of my child, and at the end conceded that the current language and literacy practices, did more harm than good for my child. And I might add, there is great benefits in practice, drills and other practices that greatly benefits the cognitive functions of the brain, and in turn promotes better reading, writing and numeracy skills of the students. At the end they had to admit, that the education system, was all wrong in their approaches. I like to think that I planted a seed inside their minds, but in reality, it is plain foolishness on my part, because literacy approaches have not change.

On the BC site: “Programs in Literacy Education draw on a range of multidiscipliary perspectives to engage aspiring professionals in the study of rich language and literacy practices from early childhood through adolescence and adulthood.”
http://lled.educ.ubc.ca/programs/programs

Having the word rich or enrich in any education document, is the clue that it is not based on the science of reading, but on some sloppy education pedagogy.

The trouble is Doug, the education system do not produced teachers skilled in reading instruction and language on the science. How many teachers across Canada within the public system, have the foundation in the Orton-Gillingham method, and other important linguistics methods?  ” Linguistics additionally draws on and informs work from such diverse fields as acoustics, anthropology, biology, computer science, human anatomy, informatics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and speech-language pathology.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Not too many of them, and no doubt the number could very well amount to the number of fingers and toes.

“The problem Nancy is that you and other rank amateurs presume to tell professionals with PhDs in reading, what works and what doesn’t work.”

And the beauty of blogs like this one sir is that the rank amateurs are proving you WRONG at every turn and your knee jerk response to every challenge is proof enough that the rank amateurs are doing EVERYTHING right.

The PhDs and other anointed experts have done such a FABULOUS job so far, it’s about time the rank amateurs used their experiences and their freedom to choose outside of the public box to exercise THEIR preferences and not the preferences of the brainiacs.

Here’s a perfect Made in Ontario fiasco. Note particularly this:  “Don Drummond publicly pronounced that economic growth had permanently stagnated under Mr. McGuinty’s watch, meaning the province’s entire model of program spending was no longer sustainable. And by the way, some of the Premier’s proudest investments – smaller class sizes, for instance – were poor value and should be reversed.”

Chalk one up for those who said this from the VERY beginning….which is OQE & a handful of other reform organizations back when McGuinty was first elected.  The smoke and mirrors spin of small class sizes for the purpose of employing more teachers for fewer kids is imploding.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/why-drummonds-doomsday-report-is-not-all-bad-for-the-premier/article2293265/

Where do I begin”:
Nancy first stated that faculties control curriculum.
When I cited evidence she switched to faculties of ed control teaching training.
This is also untrue. Faculties begin the process but the programs are too limited to do much beyond the beginning. Much more “training”- a poor choice of words that when true results in poorer results (See John Hattie’s work- he likes phonics and direct instructions and I agree with him).

Evidence is clear on the power of school communities in this going back more than a century.
There is no evidence that faculties can control curriculum, even if we wanted to.

Ben Levin is not a reading expert, nor has he ever said he was. I referenced him as an education policy expert.

Oh yes, I agree that the class size thing is misplaced. There are better ways to improve learning with less expense.

My plea
- read carefully
- be thoughtful
- be informed
- parental perspectives are important and not respected enough, but be civil, polite
and do not badmouth those who would wish to be your allies.

Dale Carnegie has a point

Amen.

Thanks John.I mirror Malkin`s words.

I need to ask this,or perhaps state is a better word.
Policy is the guiding force,that`s why Ben Levin has caused undue harm to vulnerable children.
The school boards use policy to neglect these kids,the policy becomes the excuse.They say,the MOE requires us to…teaching with phonics is forbidden..as is direct instruction.

“Phonics instruction teaches children the relationships between the letters (graphemes) of written language and the individual sounds (phonemes) of spoken language. Research has shown that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is the most effective way to develop childrens’ ability to identify words in print.”
MOE (2003) Early Literacy Strategy, p. 17.

If school boards say the MOE forbids this, they need to improve their reading.
School boards have misinterpreted MOE policy on other occasions too.

Of course the MOE says that reading is more then phonics but . . . see above

You can “blame” MOE for lots of things- not here.

John, I’m afraid I don’t understand what you say in your post.

Based on your experience who controls the curriculum and the type of training that the future teachers get?

Who makes the decisions that not knowing how to read at the end of grade one is acceptable, that students don’t need to and are not expected to know number facts and the standard arithmetic algorithms, that spelling and grammar are not important?

Who makes the decisions that an elementary teacher supposedly can and should teach any subject? How can we have people who hated math and never took math after high school supposedly teach grade 5 and above math that they haven’t mastered it themselves?

Of course somebody who hates and has little understanding of the subject matter would be a yes person, any curriculum would be a good one and if the students don’t learn obviously must be the students’ fault!

And this is by no means confined to math. There are teachers, I’ve met them, who cannot spell and they teach english. There are teachers who teach history and geophaphy without having studied these subjects after high school.

So hey, if teaching history in elementary school means only teaching Canadian history and that usually means only teaching about aboriginal people and about the settlers by having the kids imagine what their life would have been like if they were the settler’s children or by building native lodges from popsickle sticks is it any wonder that our kids have no clue about the big world around them?

I’ve talked to other parents, learning geography and history even in middle school means just having talked in a fun, simplistic way about short episodes in Canadian history or about something attractive like Egypt or the Inca or how there was a bad world war two in which a lot of people have died. Nothing about why, nothing about the economic and polical context of these episodes in history, just dumbed-down by the way once upon a time there existed Egyptians and there was a world war two that ended well.

I doubt that even 1 in 10 our students at the end of grade 8 can point on a world map the location of countries talked about on the news such as China, India, Iran are.

I doubt that even 1 in 10 of our students at the end of grade 8 can explain why did Columbus end up discovering America or anything at all about the history of China or Europe or the Middle East or explain why the second world war started other than the simplistic Hitler came to power in Germany.

Every teachers’ faculty has a curriculum department, to trained the teachers, and some of the educators, the majority of staff within the publishers for K to 12 curriculum, are composed of educators, as well as faculty within the teachers’ faculty.

“K to 12 resources almost always have named authors (normally educators), but publishers support those authors with extensive editorial and production teams. A development team for a major resource seldom includes fewer than 10 to 15 people, and may literally include hundreds of contributors and reviewers.”

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1280508345588/1280508523803

In Ontario: “The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) sets curricula, but out-sources the process of resource review and approval to Curriculum Services Canada (CSC) for English-language resources, and to the Centre canadien de leadership en évaluation (CLÉ) for French-language resources. Both organizations charge K to 12 publishers for reviews. The OME allows for resource purchases in its funding model, and makes special allocations to resource purchases on an irregular basis, but districts and schools make their own spending decisions.

The OME sets policy and programs of study, but is not usually directly involved in the review or development of resources through calls for resources or proposals.”

Who sets the reviews and development of resources and curriculum. Again, the staff of the teachers faculties, as well as a small army of educators at the board and school levels.

In the OISE mission department of the CTL:

“The mission of the Department is to play a leading role in the development of education for the 21st century locally, nationally, and internationally by:

•generating, applying, integrating, and transforming knowledge in order to improve the understanding and practice of curriculum, teaching and learning;
•providing intellectually rigorous and practically relevant programs for teachers, educational leaders, and researchers throughout their careers;
•informing and engaging in the development of justifiable educational policies;
•ensuring that the above scholarly priorities in research, program innovation, and policy development occur within a framework of excellence, equity, and community.”

If the education faculties do not have any control over the development of curriculum, than who does John? The above link is a comprehensive study on the K to 12 publisher industry in Canada. Following the crumbs, and eventually find that the education faculty staff controls the direction and what will be taught and will not be taught. The publishing industry would be lost within the education faculties to guide them in the development of K to 12 curriculum and resources.

Follow the crumbs unto the international platform, the same education faculties are vying for influence and prestige at the global level, using the identical pedagogical theories, to promote their theories and curriculum development.

If outside forces including the sitting governments and political parties control the direction of curriculum, than why isn’t there any acute differences between countries. The math curriculum in Europe , Canada, United States and even in South America, have the same underlying pedagogical theories and development theories behind the outcomes and policies set by the governing ministry of educations, in their respective countries.

Who is the one that dictates that there is no need to have students well versed on the math basics in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.? Is it really simply politics controlling the strings in curriculum, or the pedagogical theories struggling for dominance and succeeded. Social studies is such a beast, as history is, where I seen the slow evolution of the revising the heritage and historical facts, to suit the pedagogical approach of critical theory. And when parents questioned the approaches underlying the curriculum, the forces within move swiftly to end debate and the questioning of the scared cow of pedagogy and curriculum.

God Nancy,you work so hard.

“In Ontario: “The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) sets curricula, but out-sources the process of resource review and approval to Curriculum Services Canada (CSC) for English-language resources, and to the Centre canadien de leadership en évaluation (CLÉ) for French-language resources. Both organizations charge K to 12 publishers for reviews. The OME allows for resource purchases in its funding model, and makes special allocations to resource purchases on an irregular basis, but districts and schools make their own spending decisions.”

I can`t understanding deferring this important work to these people-they are just teachers from within the system,they bring bias rather than looking at research to make informed decisions.
Many curricula have come to market that have been a disaster for kids.
I just don`t get it-and the fact they get paid for it leaves me a bit nauseous.

Nancy, with all due respect, although I appreciate your eagerness, I was interested in John’s informed opinion as the opinion of a person who has been or is and insider to the sytem.

John? Would you care to take the time to explain what you think?

Europe,I`m not John,your post so descriptive of the blatant mediocrity and obvious errors of the system.
The reason I will bring you back to Nancy`s thoughts are twofold-
A-She shows you the link to corporate world…the appraisal of curricula for a fee from a company that says yes or no.Then these products are marketed to schools from an “approved list”.
B-She reminds us of the weakness and absolute sloppy design of teacher training,as do you.
Were Jump Math or Explicit Systematic Synthetic phonics curricula to apply for approval,they would be rejected.The research says yes,these people say no.
Why,because they say the materials don`t fall under the guidelines of the MOE.
I sense corporate liaison.

The history curriculum or lack thereof,isn`t that a textbook from a publisher for elementary school?
I will be interested to see if John answers you,about,from the inside:)

An attempt to answer from the inside.
Read ben Levin for further info as he is a real insider

All educational jurisdictions have similar textbook approval processes. In history I will taker Trillium over Texas any time, flawed as it may be.
Faculties do NOIT set the rules for such reviews. We are usually in my experience, which is considerable and not just in Ontario, called in towards the end.

Our mission at OISE “may” be to be play a leading role, but that mission is generally not even close to being realized.

Google “JOhn Fielding, Tales from the Crypt? as he who taught at Queens led a group trying to write history and social science curriculum in the late 1990s.
We at OISE turned down the job because we knew from old experience that we would never make the key decisions we thought should be made.

As for publishing companies power. They are subject to political whim too. This is why I cite Texas?

I could have cited Japan or the UK under Thatcter and her Conservative and Labour successors.

It all boils down to politics. It always has. It is just that there are more voices, a greater diversity of opinion,
and
more democracy- and this is messy stuff

Do I wish the MOE was better? Sure.

If they want advice, they can ask.

The best explanation of all this with evidence that rings true to me, is Ben Levin.

I do not cite him because he is a reading expert- he is not and would not say so.

If you read him and John Fielding you get better evidence-based insights on some of the challenges.

One final example, there is now a move to lengthen teacher training (initial teacher education is a much better term) to two years.
This seems to have come from the Premiers office
NOT the faculties who are generally not consulted
NOT the education ministry as my spies tell me it was sprung on them one late Friday afternoon.

I am reminded of another example. The weekend of Labour Day the B.C. MoE announced it was dropping its grade 12 provincial exams, likely because of the expense.

While this was met with favour by many teachers, the teachers did not have the power to pull the trigger. In the study of curriculum reform I referred to in a previous post, we looked at several U.S. states.

It seems whatever changes were made were based on
- political whim
- the existence of money to pay for it

That is the case with so many elements of government, for good or ill.
It is democracy- the squeaky wheel of politics.

Here’s a perfect Made in Ontario fiasco. Note particularly this:  “Don Drummond publicly pronounced that economic growth had permanently stagnated under Mr. McGuinty’s watch, meaning the province’s entire model of program spending was no longer sustainable. And by the way, some of the Premier’s proudest investments – smaller class sizes, for instance – were poor value and should be reversed.”

Chalk one up for those who said this from the VERY beginning….which is OQE & a handful of other reform organizations back when McGuinty was first elected.  The smoke and mirrors spin of small class sizes for the purpose of employing more teachers for fewer kids is imploding.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/why-drummonds-doomsday-report-is-not-all-bad-for-the-premier/article2293265/

Posted by Dan Sing on 01/06 at 02:40 PM

On McGuinty’s watch is over the top, we had this world wide near collapse of capitalism brought on by massive greed on Wall Street. This hit manufacturing hardest of all. It gutted manufacturing in the USA the citidel of capitalism.

Tht being said, there is an element of self inflicted wounds with the Ontario Liberal Party (OLP).

The problem Liberal have always had is the problem of a split personlity. The core Liberal voter agrees with the left (NDP) about spending on health, education and the environment but agrees with the right (PC) about taxes especially for themselves or their business. In good times this can be done by kicking the can down the road (deficits and debt). Conservative are often quite honest about this. “You will have low taxes but as a result services will be minimum.” Social Democrats (NDP in Ontario) are honest about it as well. “You will have much higher services but you will be expected to pay for them with taxes not debts and deficits. We will push as much of it as we can on the affluent and the corporations but you must also shoulder a good stiff tax burden.”

This is the honest debate. The Liberals don’t want to have this debate because it divides their own supporters. As the Liberals in Manitoba gradually declined to one seat one could statistically see their former voters divide up the middle with a big piece moving to the PCs horrified by an NDP government and a big piece shifting o the NDP horrified at a PC government.

This is the death spiral followed by most Euopean Liberal during the 20th Century. It just happened in the last federal election but could still be reversed. Ontario is the last real ridout of Liberalism in Canada. Depending on how McGuinty plays this, it could be their death in Ontario.

John, what is being described in your post, is the accountability and delegation of tasks. The minister has the power, if the minister chooses to, to canned curriculum and insert curriculum of his choosing. However, it is never used, because the structure system allows accountability to be spread out, to set up the conditions for collaboration of the various stakeholders to undertake the development of curriculum. At the end, the minister of education is where the buck stops, but the processes of development of curriculum is not actually in his hands, but rests in the hands of an independent evaluation company which is Curriculum Services Canada (CSC).

CSC, is the central point for all curriculum and the resources, not only for the approval process for the Trillium list, but across Canada and internationally as well. Much of the STEM curriculum across Canada, is more or less identical to Ontario’s STEM curriculum. Social studies and history is more or less a province initiative, and the provinces also use the services of CSC, for their stamp of approval.

“Curriculum Services Canada (CSC) is the Pan-Canadian standards agency for quality assurance in learning products and programs. We are an incorporated, not-for-profit organization that provides services including the development, implementation, evaluation, and accreditation of teaching and learning resources, and the delivery of professional learning opportunities online, using multimedia and social networking. Our organization works closely with governments, NGOs, industry, and agencies across Canada and internationally on initiatives related to learning and learner success at all ages and stages of life. CSC supports educators and community groups in taking a leadership role in their boards, schools, classrooms, organizations, and communities.

CSC is the parent organization for a family of quality services trusted by Canadian teachers. Our affiliate and charitable arm, The Curriculum Foundation (TCF), supports a Grants for Teachers program for the development of new teaching and/or learning resources”
http://curriculum.org/content/about-csc

No the faculties do not set the rules, the ministry of education does, but more importantly the faculties are sitting at the top, influencing the direction of curriculum via through the pedagogy, education theories and their education research. Looking at the CSC site, it is obvious the development of curriculum, is in sync with the training and teaching of the education faculties.

As for the little surprises of ministers making announcements, without warning to the other parts, isn’t that all about the politics, and scoring brownie points. Was it not the BC union pushing for the dropping of provincial exams, as well as standard testing, that started the ball game, and expense is used as the scapegoat, instead of the real reasons. It wouldn’t look good to have the minister making decisions based on the war with the unions, as well as the school boards. In the same way as the on going strike of the BC teachers, where everyone is maneuvering through the political windows, and students are the ones that paying the price.

The minister of education has the authority to make changes such as adding another year to teacher training, as he does have the authority to extend the school day. Extending the school day, may put the minister in political hot water, compared to the more pleasing change of adding an extra year for teaching training. Did you know that Michael Fullan is currently Special Advisor to the Premier and Minister of Education in Ontario.?
Could it be Fullan, was the one whispering in the ear of the Premier, and as he states on his web site, his concerns lies with the learning of all children, and dhttp://www.michaelfullan.ca/biography.htmoes reflect it in his work and research.

Some postings back, John quoted from the Ontario Ministry of Education’s 2003 Early Reading Strategy (not “Early Literacy Strategy”), suggesting that this paper represents the Ministry’s official policy. However, the Ministry’s official policy document (http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf), written two years later in 2005, largely ignores the Early Reading Strategy. It is pure Fountas and Pinnell, and F&P are not supported by research.

I doubt that even 1 in 10 of our students at the end of grade 8 can explain why did Columbus end up discovering America or anything at all about the history of China or Europe or the Middle East or explain why the second world war started other than the simplistic Hitler came to power in Germany.

Columbus did not “discover” America he invaded America.

None of the rest of your examples are on the elementary curriculum in Ontario. The causes of WW2 would be covered in grade 10. (The rise of the Nazi Party and the Fascist Party were financed by German and Italian capital fearful of Communism. All well documented)

The history of China or Europe or the middle east are covered in elective HS courses in grade 11-12. Too bad.

Doug,you tried to get us off track here,it didn`t work.
Your message has nothing to do with the important topic of how flawed curriculum is chosen and disseminated to millions of students across the country,we ask,how..and why?

In both cases I was responding “within the thread” to comments from Dan and From Europe.

From an earlier post by Malkin
“However, the Ministry’s official policy document (http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf), written two years later in 2005”

When i clicked on the link it says
2003
and it also says
Guide
which is not quite the same as policy.
A guide is meant to help implement policy. Some guides are better others.

And
rightly or wrongly,
there is often a difference between the OFFICIAL curriculum
and the curriculum that is
taught
or tested
or learned

John,this is truly interesting.

What we have then is a scenario where anything goes,as far as pedagogy for reading intervention and struggling readers,the wiggle room that allows lack of intervention.

That should be fixed immediately!Did you see the Casey Foundation research paper on what happens to children who don`t learn by grade 3?

This kind of research brings urgency,if we were really humanitarians in the education field,this would be both a priority and an emergency.

Here`s the link!

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS COUNT/123/2010KCSpecReport/Special Report Executive Summary.pdf

Joanne, the link that your provided, stresses the role of the parent and their advocacy for their children in the education system. Hard to do in a system, that discourages advocacy by parents, in any aspect of the education system.

And John, Joanne is correct in her assertion that there is a lot of wiggle room to prevent remediation as well as intervention. A common scene at a typical school, the stress is to prevent intervention as well as remediation, via through the narrowing of qualifying measures, for intervention and remediation beyond the classroom, and the resources.

At the moment, somewhere above the school boards, the goal of expanding the norm, to prevent remediation as well as increasing interventions within the classroom, that specifically targets the weaknesses. Today, I just been forewarn on a personal level, but I have read it in black and white in bits and pieces, from the upper crust of the education system, and their fancy PHDs. Low and behold, only to arrive at my doorstep this morning.

I may have a new quest today, a problem that crosses the intersection of legal rights, the current pedagogy practices and the remediation/intervention practices of the education system, but the big plus is - I know what it is all about. The expansion of the norm within the classroom. I may have to start practicing my fencing art, just in case I have to cross swords with the public education system, Imagine that, I thought the public education system could no longer do harm to my child’s education at this late stage of the game, and it is happening right across Canada, and not just in my corner of the world.

Anything should NOT go when it comes to teaching.

Some approaches are clearly better than others.

What I have tried to say was
even the best approaches are not equivalent to magic bullets.

That is part of the “context” reference That’s all..

Too bad excuses prevail over best practice-I suggest you go out and meet these young children,those left behind,you might actually begin to feel a desire for explicit research based intervention ....their suffering at such a tender age is palpable.
And then comes the behaviour…about a year later.
And then it all begins..the label syndrome.
I believe each student labeled costs about $20,000.00,then the IEP gets filed.

Joanne, from a parent’s perspective, it is not the IEP that is filed away, but the psychoeducational assessment and evaluations that are filed away. Never to be seen again, until the next assessment.

Too bad, because it is the assessments that shows the true picture, and direction for the IEP. Low phonemic awareness can be corrected to the point that it is no longer interfering in learning in the classroom. The earlier on the better, as well as sequencing problems and memory processing problems. My child score a 59 for low phonemic awareness, in the first assessment, and yet the first IEP stated creative expression problems. Nothing for reading remediation, and I had to fight for a like-Orton-Gillingham program for my child. I did received it, but it was taken away when her grades reflected a solid B. Her second assessment, raise the score to a 69, and no doubt, her third assessment for 2012, will reflect the same score of 69.

If my child had the proper corrective program for phonemic awareness, the score would have been well above 85, and perhaps into the 90s. The research indicates, on the research-based programs for dyslexics, that children will regressed, or make no improvements, if the program is taken away early, or not enough time spent on it weekly, less than 3 hours per week. The present in-house programs within the education system, although helpful and much has improved over the years, still does little to improve low phonemic awareness to a 85 score, which is considered a low-average ability. Most children like my child, at the very best would raise their scores 5 points, if using an in-house program created by the education system, based on whole language.

What the education system considers best practice are based on the ideology and dogma, and not on using programs and curriculum that are best suited to improve on the reading, writing and numeracy proficiency of students. It is why the psychoeducational assessments are filed away, because they represent the numbers tell a different story, that comes in conflict with school practices, and at the very least questions that the education system would rather not talk about.

John, yes one can state that some methods are better than others, as well as there is no such thing as magic bullets. If there was magic bullets, there would not be a world-wide economic crisis. But if one follows and practice best practice, the final outcomes, fine tuning and correcting during the processes, based on the science and collective experiences, and common sense, it will even the odds and the best chances for students and teachers alike.

If it does cost $20,000 for the label, I could have done it for $7000 for my child by taking her to a private tutor, for a two year period, to work on her reading. As for numeracy problems, I blame that one directly on the math curriculum, and not on the dyslexic problems of my child.