“Parents1 play an important role in their children’s learning. Studies show that students
perform better in school if their parents are involved in their education. By becoming
familiar with the health and physical education curriculum, parents can better appreciate
what is being taught in each grade and what their children are expected to learn. This
awareness will enhance parents’ ability to discuss their children’s work with them, to
communicate with teachers, and to ask relevant questions about their children’s progress.
Knowledge of the expectations will also help parents to understand how their children
are progressing in school, to interpret teachers’ comments on student progress, and to
work with teachers to improve their children’s learning.
Parents are the primary educators of their children with respect to learning about values,
appropriate behaviour, and ethnocultural, spiritual, and personal beliefs and traditions,
and they act as significant role models for their children. It is therefore important for
schools and parents to work together to ensure that home and school provide a mutually
supportive framework for young people’s education.“
The paragraphs above, taken out of the mandatory curriculum, is actually telling parents its their highway, and you are only there for the ride.

To have a private school in Ontario you only need 5 students. Huge numbers of the private schools in the GTA rea are diploma mills for off shore kids. The % of kids in private schools has hardly budged in fact, due to the recession many private school kids have come back to the public school.

Above seems long overdue to me. Sexual orientation if a perfectly normal aspect of human sexuality.

It will be interesting to see what happens when “worlds collide” on this topic, and they inevitably do.

Doug, on the Ontario site, they have listed the number of private schools that have had their credit-ranking revoked, All took place between the years of 2004 to 2006. None have taken place after 2006. It is a handful, all centre around Toronto. You should note, that there is handful of public high schools, who actively recruit foreign students, the same foreign students looking for a place at the private schools.
Also private schools are defined differently, where 700 private schools, are named, and ranked because they are making use of some of the Ontario curriculum and for high schools, they have credit-ranking status, and school inspections take place to ensure that their curriculum is following along with Ontario’s mandates.  That leaves 239 private schools, which are probably the private elementary schools, which are under no mandate to: “The ministry does not conduct inspections of private elementary schools. Private elementary schools are not obliged to use the Ontario curriculum.“
The schools of 5 pupils or less, are the home school crowd, and are not seen as private schools at all. Add the home school crowd, and the number of students that are seeking alternative education, other than public education, is on the rise, and increases each year. One of the biggest reasons is the curriculum that is provided. along with teaching methods, and the administration of school policy.

Nancy - that mandatory curriculum paragraph has it all backwards. Time was that parents set the standards and raised their children and the schools honoured those teachings not the other way around.

I know that the Catholic schools have a much easier time of respecting the role of parents and family in learning than does the public board.

I have to wonder about just how sexually educated some teachers may be, because as we’ve all seen this past week having those lapdancing teachers from Manitoba teaching kids anything at all about this subject would be frightening indeed.  In some school communities teachers aren’t exactly the greatest of role models either….but then some parents aren’t either I guess. (Enter Doug here to remind us how if parents had been doing their job the education system wouldn’t have to do it for them - yadda, yadda, yadda).

The overwhelming majority of students who are not doing well come from poor families and that is just a fact. Those who attempt to deny it eventually just look foolish.

Poor kids come to school with a vocabulary of about 500 words. Middle class kids have an average of 1000 words when they arrive. The greatest gains on MC kids after that point is during summers and school breaks when poor kids do not progress at all and MC kids continue to progress, in other words almost all of the advantage MC kids have is gained outside of school.

Is the school blameless? Not at all because they have not done enough to mitigate these advantages. The school system must offer ECE to poor kids 2 years +, they must lower their class sizes to 18-, they must find ways, financial, professional, advancement and other to encourage their most qualified teachers to work in poor schools. See the solutions from the experts at the site below.

http://www.boldapproach.org

To used only the numbers to income, as the basis for increases in spending to targeted a specific group, is to ignore all the other factors that influences the number of words, known at a specific age group. The studies most of them that began in the 1990s, have often been funded by specific fields, and where the medical research tells a different story, where the number of words, is just one variable, that is dependent on a whole host of factors. Plus, the studies conducted are small, and often the studies contain only the kids with low income, without having the middle-class group to compare over long term. A lot of the studies are snapshots in time, and to make the assumption that vocabulary will be the dividing line for enrichment and other programs at the school level, based on income. That is problematic to begin with, and takes funding away from the students who do not fall into the low income group. Second thing, it is a form of selective discrimination. This kind of thinking is already being practice in our schools. Children of low income are the first ones to identified early on for reading problems, while the children of the middle class are less likely to be identified and in some cases never identified throughout their school years. Also children of low income, are the majority sitting in special education. You know the ones that have the learning problems, while the middle class kids, and their parents are fighting for assessments, programs, and are least likely to insist on special education classes, because they see it for what it is, dumb-down remedial class. Further, teachers are less likely to recommend assessments for middle-class children, or receive targeted lessons, because they see think the higher the oral vocabulary, there is no reading problem. I have had that too thrown at me, as one of the reasons that to denied the assessment, or even help.
Now also note, there is few schools across Canada that have only a low-income ranking, the majority of schools have a balance between the income groups. What are you suggesting, split the K class apart based on number of words or income. If that is the case, you will miss all of the middle-class group, where their vocabulary is fine, but still end up struggling in school.
The medical researchers, have suggested that the best indicators are the development milestones of a child, rather than using other factors, that are influenced by a host of factors. For example, even a slight speech delay, and not crawling before walking, there is a good chance that the child will experience learning problems at some point in the early grades. With a major speech delay, and not crawling, there is a 97 % chance of learning problems. The schools would be a lot better off to change their way of thinking, and money well spent to address all the needs of their children, rather than selective discrimination based on income.

The more low income kids in the school, the more money the school should get. Toronto and a number of other boards have been doing this for years. Every school in TO can be found by its SES rating from high to low. It matches their EQAO scores almost exactly.

Doug you are suggesting, that education needs are based on income only. The lower the income, the more funding for that student. There is no guarantee that extra funding, would go to those low income students, nor the needed resources.  Schools and funding, should be tied in with the educational needs of the child, and the extra funding applied to those students, and the base should be increase to take into account other social factors, that impact education and learning, but are not considered variables directing related to the education portion, such as a reading problem, or a writing problem, that impacts all children across the social/economic spectrum. Supplying breakfast, and tasty nutritious food for lunch, could be a start, bring back recess, and extend the school hours, so they have a place to hang out shooting some baskets, instead of the street corner when school is out. I could add more, like improving the lines of communication between social services, health and education, where services are offered for the children, and you might be surprise how many parents of low income will jump on board. Richer schools, really have no need for extra services, because those parents already have ready access to the medical system, private insurance for child psychologists, and the money to buy private tutoring for their kids. The majority of the middle to low income kids, are the ones that are at risk, since that is dependent on type of jobs, the economy, and a host of other factors that are beyond the school’s control.

Nancy, I was on the TDSB forerunner the TBE for years and spent many years looking and funding. Of course SE and ESL funding should follow the child on a needs basis but the rest of the formula no matter how complicated you want to make it in a multicultural polyglot like Toronto comes down to SES. The rest of the formula is allocate by SES. There is a little funding for FI but not much. Really social class is not everything but it is 90% of everything.

Doug/Nancy - you’ve gone way off the subject of this thread.

However that “the overwhelming majority of students who are not doing well come from poor families” explains why
it is those families who are asking for and deserve more choice including vouchers and charter schools.

If you’re admitting Doug that they can’t be taught and there’s no hope in the public system then set them free to make their own choices.

By far in the USA it’s not the rich moving the voucher and charter movement…it’s the poor inner-city folks.

Regarding the new K—8 curriculum for Sept 2010, in my opinion there are things which should be addressed—same sex couples raising children is one I have no issues with; transgender, again acceptance of people and how God made them.  At the root of every religion I know of is love, compassion and acceptance, and to me this is basically what would be conveyed to the children. 
What I would like to see taken out, however is cautioning children as young as 12 to carry condons—this to me is a green light, telling kids to become sexually active at a very young age.  As adults we should be encouraging our children not to engage in sex.  Would there be ramifications where these later adults would not understand commitment?
What other negative impacts would there be?
Would engaging in sex at a very early age make them happier?  I think that quite the opposite would occur.
I fully understand that the attitute nowadays is, ‘oh well, most of them are going to be active anyhow’, but that’s where the old adage, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ comes in.
Rather than giving up, we need to guide our children along the path of childhood in order that they be come happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults.

I really don’t think you are paying attention to what I say Chuck. Like Diane Ravitch and Linda Darling-Hammond, I believe that the only hope for America is the public school system. Our Canadian system is not bad but could be improved with more money spent on ECE, smaller classes and teacher training but the American situation is pathetic. It is as if they gave up on the bottom 20% of their public schools many years ago. The white/Asian school results would put the USA above the OECD average but when you add in the Black/Hispanic scored they drop like a stone to #36 in the world.

The Americans have a perverse system of local property tax for education that allows wealthy and middle class neighbourhoods to actually spend 10X the amount on their schools that inner city and rural poor schools get. They Gerrymander their school boundaries to keep the rich with the rich aand the poor with the poor. High quality teachers gravitate to the suburbs because the teaching is easier and more rewarding, also less dangerous. The inner cities are plagued with the least qualified teachers, many totally uncertified, on short term contracts. One of the reasons more are not fired or better yet, not hired in the first place is that they need a warm body with a pulse in the classroom. Firing teachers in inner city or rural poor areas often means no replacement available. These reas are plagued with chronic teacher shortages to the point that Teach for America, uncertified college kids are brought in but they don’t stay.

Charters and vouchers are no answer because they do not have better results than the public schools. This has become clear to all involved. You really need to read Diane Ravitch’s latest book which puts the final nail in the credibility of both testing and choice. I always come back to the same simple statement. There are many nations surging ahead of the USA. Two decades ago they had the world’s highest % of college grads. Today they are #19 and it is all the fault of underfunding, testing and choice. Simply put, “this is not the formula used by successful nations that are leaving the USA behind.“ If we follow the American testing, choice, underfunding formula, we will soon fall as far as they have.

I hear you loud and clear Doug. I choose not to idolize the authors of studies as you seem to like to do because the word on the ground in the USA tells a very different story.

Hey, but go ahead and spin it all you want.

I know that if those parents of poorer households had the opportunity they’d get their kids the education they needed and out of the system they’re stuck in.

I think it’s time for anther kick-ass school choice conference in Ontario. The last one went off so well and saw so many public education leaders and great discussion that no one wanted to go home.

It’s still as hot and as popular as ever. But I know I don’t have to convince folks here.

Ya I would not want to look at the research if I were you either Chuck because none of it supports your point of view. Now that Diane Ravitch has renounced the cause, a major article by Chester Finn has surfaced where he says much the same thing, NCLB has failed, choice is failing and the reform movement needs to reexamine its direction.

Doug, Diane Ravitch is not quite on your side, as in the article in Education Week states, “If the new book has a sense of urgency, it’s because Ms. Ravitch sees developments in education over the past 20 years as distinctly different from other periods of history, as control of public schools is increasingly being ceded to district administrators, big-money foundations, mayors, and federal officials. That, she says, is why the title of the book riffs off The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the classic 1961 book by Jane Jacobs that argued that modern urban planning was destroying inner-city communities.“
Schools are no longer a place where people gather, nor children after the school day is over, or before school starts. Parents have been chase out of our schools, and where the structure, are orders from the top down is the norm. A business model, that should have no place in the public school system. Read the article, it does give more details, on why she has switch positions, and offers other stances from other individuals as well.
“Ms. Ravitch says, “threatens to destroy public education.” And she concludes her book by asking, “Who will stand up to the tycoons and politicians and tell them so?”
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/04/24ravitch_ep.h29.html?tkn=PTNF8KgKx6FnkZ4Iaj+qylKflX735QYtc2E/&cmp=clp-edweek

But Nancy, I agree with every word of this. You need to understand that I was one of three people in Toronto, including Kathleen Wynne who put together a parent-teacher alliance to take the power in education away from Mike Harris, and board and Mowat Block bureaucrats, and give it back to parents and teachers (in alliance with school board workers and sr students) where it belongs. My thesis all along has been that parents and teachers have exactly the same agende, clean safe calm schools, small class sizes, bigger budgets, more ECE, higher graduation rates, more support for kids who need it delivered earlier, better training for teachers, better salaries to attract the best to teaching and so on. I`m a populist at heart.

My thesis all along has been that parents and teachers have exactly the same agenda, clean safe calm schools, small class sizes, bigger budgets, more ECE, higher graduation rates, more support for kids who need it delivered earlier, better training for teachers, better salaries to attract the best to teaching and so on. I`m a populist at heart”

But your education philosophy is constructivism, and as Diane Ravtich has expressed in an essay in 2005,
“Neither Mr. Bloomberg nor Mr. Klein knew about the war of ideas that had been raging among educators for many years. On one side, beloved by schools of education, are the century-old ideas of progressive education, now called “constructivism.“ Associated with this philosophy are such approaches as whole language, fuzzy math, and invented spelling, as well as a disdain for phonics and grammar, an insistence that there are no right answers (just different ways to solve problems), and an emphasis on students’ self-esteem. Constructivists dislike any kind of ability grouping or special classes for gifted children. By diminishing the authority of the teacher, constructivist methods often create discipline problems”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006679

In a 2007 interview, she expresses: “Teachers’ unions have been focused on salaries and working conditions, which is good but not enough any more. They must see that part of the working conditions that must be improved are the ability of their members to teach, their right to have a sound curriculum, and their right to act as professionals rather than automatons who produce this odd combination of higher test scores but not educated students.“
http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat205.shtml

Doug being an advocate for unions is fine, but to state that parents are on the same side of teachers is stretching it a bit too taunt. Constructivism does not work well with what Ravitch is advocating now and if it does become reality, the teacher unions and colleges will than go under the gun to change to become educators from being educrats and to drop their support for constructivism..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/01/04/ED16249.DTL

“Simply put, educrats believe in process—as opposed to educators, who believe in results. Educrats focus on how children learn. Educators focus on what they learn.“
I bet an educrat, was behind reforming the new curriculum for sex education.

I agree with Ravitch about teacher unions, always have.

Parents and teachers have virtually identical goals and directions for education.

BOTH WANT:
smaller classes
bigger budgets
better trained teachers
more resources
small schools to stay open
newer cleaner safer calmer schools
more help for struggling kids earlier
more kids to graduate and go on to U & C
no money to private schools

Seems like a common agenda to me

Than why if you agree on Ravitch’s comments on the union, why do you act as an automaton for the union and support the constructivist approach toward education. As for your comment on parents and teachers wants for education, here again it is a typical response from a constructivist. On the contrary, parents want a well-rounded education for their children, and not the latest fad imposed on their children, to act as guinea pigs for the latest changes to the curriculum, that is often driven by the top level of the union and their counterparts the board.

I get accused of spin a lot around here which makes me chuckle while I am faced with arguments that say, why do things the way I don’t want (constructivism, projects, inquiry, problem solving) when you could do them the way I do want ie the correct way? It is the responce of the engineer looking at art. Education is POLITICAL folks. The correct decision is the one that gets the most votes I’m sad to tell you. If you want the SQE goals from the front of this site, you need to find politicians who believe you and get them elected. To do that you need a majority or at least a plurality to agree with you and they clearly do not agree.

In the goals, as set out in the front, only privatization into charters and vouchers will do the trick. Get ready for a long wait folks. That ship sailed with John Tory’s rather humiliating defeat squarely on this question. I have said before I have seen the polling on this. 15% agree with Tory’s policy which is why the Bill Murdoch’s of the world broke with him before the election was even over.