Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

SQE - Why We Do What We Do

March 18, 2010 by at 07:45 AM

I guess we should take it as a compliment that SQE has been called “the most influential of the Canadian conservative-far right blogs” by our most prolific commenter, but  I really have to thank Sandy Crux over at The Retired Educator for setting the record straight.

The Society for Quality Education is a non-partisan education policy advocacy organization.  Our goal to to help families of struggling students.  SQE has no political affiliation nor does it endorse any political party or politician.  We accept no government funding of any kind and never will.  We are not “backed” by any other organization, although we have partnered with other think tanks to hold events and sponsor speakers.

Our website says:

“The Society for Quality Education works hard to provide individual parents and teachers with helpful information and tools. But at the same time, we are painfully aware that we can reach out to only a tiny fraction of the children who are struggling in school. There is an urgent need to modify the system to ensure that every child can succeed in school.“

We believe in researched-based, proven-effective teaching methods. If we are zealots about anything, it is promotion of effective teaching practice. So yes, we promote direct instruction of systematic phonics and sequential math.   Stairway to Reading and Stairway to Math have been developed from those principles, as is JUMP Math which I posted on previously.  We make our materials available free to anyone who comes to our website.  On occasion, if you like what you see, we may ask you to consider a small donation.  

Decades of ineffective progressive education practices, such as whole-language, have led to a generation of kids who, despite boosted graduation rates from high schools, still have poor fundamental skills. The dramatic increase in post-secondary remediation for basic skills is ample proof of that.

We are not trying to “privatize” education; on the contrary, we have worked hard to encourage effective instructional practices in our public schools.  Although many individual educators have never abandoned effective methods, the established public education system does not encourage these practices.  Billions of additional education dollars have gone into the publicly-funded school system only to maintain the status quo and achieve essentially the same results.  To date, the list of approved materials for Ontario public schools still does not include one systematic phonics program.

As a result, we believe that parents should be able to choose their schools, any school, to get the kind of education that will allow their children to learn best.  Further, we believe that there should be financial mechanisms that would allow families to do this, especially low-income families.  If wanting to improve the education outcomes of poorer and middle-income families makes us rabid right-wing zealots, so be it.  At the same time, we believe that teachers should have the freedom to use effective methods and be accountable for their results.

The competition that results from parental school choice is an incentive that helps the whole system improve. Low-income families desire school choice as a way to get their kids out of underperforming and, in many cases, unsafe schools.

Finally, we believe that there should be transparent mechanisms that measure both effectiveness of instruction and financial accountability.  That’s why we maintain the Sunshine on Schools website.

Our critics revert to fear-mongering and name calling.  They continue to spread many myths about school choice, but we know that parents demand satisfaction. 

In the words of Dr. Howard Fuller, who during his SQE-sponsored visit to Toronto said:

“Consider the impact of putting the right kind of parental choice in the hands of families who have little or no power because they control no resources, no levers of influence over the decisions and decision-making process that impacts their children’s education. Consider how this power may change the shape of the future for their children. And consider how the absence of this power may mean their children will be trapped in schools that more affluent parents who oppose choice would never tolerate for their own children.“

“...Those of us with money have the capacity to choose and the great hypocrisy that operates are those individuals who would never put their own children in certain schools denying poor parents the capacity to do it. We have teachers who teach in schools they would never put their own children in, demanding that other peoples’ children stay there. I find that to be hypocritical. We’ve got politicians running around talking about how important the public school structure is and then you ask them, ‘Well, where do your children go to school?‘“

“I actually happen to be a strong supporter of public schools, but I’m also a strong supporter of giving people a choice so that they can determine whether a public school or private school will be best for their children.“

Amen!

For more of what SQE is all about, I invite readers to check out Information for Parents, for Teachers, and for the General Public.

Comments

Did Mr. Little alert you to this gem on his blog Doretta? Seems out of courtesy he would have notified you of the honour.

What is hilarious about that post is the terrifying photo of Malkin. Frightening especially because if you zoom into the shot she’s appears to be speaking at the “Institute for Liberal Studies” - that’s enough to scare anyone blue.

Keep up the great work Doug, you’re the poster boy for what ails the system and why parents are looking over their shoulders for something better for their kids.

Posted by Chuck on 03/18 at 10:42 AM

Thanks for the link Doretta. As many of your regulars may know, “The Retired Educator” is a spin off from “Crux of the Matter.“

Anyway, h/t to Catherine who alerted me to Doug’s diatribe in the first place. And, since I was mentioned in it, I thought it appropriate to write a rebuttal—not just about SQE but the notion that anyone, anywhere (e.g,. MendEd) who questions the state of the current Ontario education system is considered a “right winger,“ zealot or whatever. In other words, we live in a democracy, yet according to Doug Little, any questions or criticism of the current Ontario public education system can only be coming from “conservatives.“ Pardon me?

Well, keep up the good work. As as retired teacher educator (and one who taught in the public system for many years), I am embarrassed at the hubris displayed by Little.

Yet, as I said in my post, it seems that it is those of us with traditional/conservative values who are now the visionaries and agents of positive change.

However, one thing Little has done for all us during the last few months of his commenting campaign, is bring us together and make us see why the public system is currently the way it is and what will need to happen to change it.

Posted by Sandy Crux on 03/18 at 12:04 PM

Anybody with a grade 6 eduction can read the above explanation and see that you support privatization of education. Anybody who even associates with the Fraser Institute or CD Howe knows they are hooked up in alliance with far right privatizers.

Answer a simple question. “Do you support giving public money to private schools, be they religious or secular, under any circumstances?“

A positive answer puts you in the privatization camp and everybody knows it. That proposition draws the support of 15% of the population.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 04:24 PM

Seems up in “myths about school choice” you support public funding of independent schools. The rest of us call them private schools and we consider giving them a nickel to be privatization.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 04:57 PM

As a parent, I am not in the habit, nor do I see myself, when making decisions or voicing opinion on education or health matters, or other issues that we all have a common vested interest, to view myself through a political lens. Concerning my child, I expect the professionals to be professional and be an authority in the field that they work in. I have no interest in their political beliefs. My interest in professionals, as with most parents, is to ensure that they are qualified and are looking out for the interests of their children. SQE, and other sites that have sprung up, is a response to a public education system, that is ailing, if not dying. Ordinary parents, no matter their political/social/economic standing, are frustrated at a public education system, that mouths equality, and yet practices inequality at every turn. And weaved through the fabric of schools, is no accountability or transparent processes in order to throw road blocks, waiting lines, jamming of access points, to prevent children from receiving a basic foundational education. We need SQE, and other like them, to inform parents, educate parents, and most of all, to empower them.
Sites like Doug’s, are sites that contain emotional hubris, but no useful information and knowledge for parents.

Posted by Nancy on 03/18 at 04:57 PM

You make a series of statements that I am sure you believe Nancy but there is no evidence that they are true and in fact evidence that they are not true.
As you know, I was the liasion to our pollster and when I retired I took a position with them. Our latest round of education was encapsulated by our chief pollster as “McGuinty owns education.“ Of course issues like HST among other pulls him down but when you isolate on education, the “Education Permier” owns education. This is the area of his greatest popularity. Progressives are also somewhat frustrated by this as well. We have demands on him to abolish the EQAO, OCT. Fix the funding formula to make it far more generous, extend the ELP, make classes smaller, pay teachers and education workers more. If he is too popular, he can ignore us to an extent. The frustration you see is NOT widely shared. Those who are frustrated, I agree are very frustrated but they are not numerous. That is just a fact.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 05:19 PM

I have clearly and honestly explained what SQE is all about.  The whole website says what we are about.
There is nothing else to explain.

Posted by Doretta Wilson on 03/18 at 06:26 PM

I will take that s a yes. SQE supports giving public money to private schools. Of course this is an anathema to the vast majority of parents and voters across Canada.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 07:14 PM

Doug here is a Fraser report, which I believe is 2004 report. Interesting read.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:u23sMcoZlLQJ:www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Ontarios Best Education Premier-Nov03hepburn.pdf+Popularity+of+the+Ontario+Premier+in+education&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESirsOv9n6GcBAqLNOH-LOXfVWvI2-5S6y5HnICAkcKaoloLAOwsTgwi1oH—qo1a5GkS0bPfeQp-oqDsYuFX5aGocUcE3UfJQBZoMTjKGyjfI4sStcmTGQdtSEtTJh4Ow4PAvDo&sig=AHIEtbRfyAmLt8QzdsSa5sKZf5-DDeUVuw

Here is a newer one, that talks about public education and the problems within.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/7046.aspx

Here is another from Frontier, that is of interest.
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/1280

There is lots more , that indicates parents are not happy campers anywhere in Canada. Support for school choice is increasing every year. Now show me your evidence once and for all, that this is not the case.
In closing, I leave you with this article, why parents are not happy campers, when a school trustee who works for the public educations, send his child to a private school. This is not isolated, where at the top of the education ladder, are very well paid employees, who do send their children to private schools, than the public education system. They sit and make policies for other children, but would never dream of having their own children subjected to the same policies and mandates.
http://publiceducationhorizons.com/2009/12/19/public-school-trustees-and-private-choices/

Posted by Nancy on 03/18 at 07:21 PM

Nancy you need to expand your reading list. I would not give the Fraser Institute one minute of my time. They are a right wing propaganda outfit without any credibility in the education field. They are about as credible as Sarah Palin. Their slogan “Private solutions to public policy problems” says it all. These guys want to privatize the Fire Department. I see the polls all the time. The OSSTF polls are of course private but the OISE polls are not. There is no groundswell of anger amongst parents and there is no dramatic shift to private schools. You seem to want to “create a crisis” like John Snobelen where there is none. I have mentioned that McGuinty, much to my displeasure is seen to be moving in the correct direction.

Your problem is that you talk to the cranks all the time. It is like saying, all the guys down at the stock exchange think we need a tax cut on golf clubs.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 07:53 PM

I could not care less about the political bent of a think tank, or any other organization that produces a study, with data. I look at the data, the methods used, a skill that has been finely sharpened over the years, reading other research, regarding LD. It may be self-taught, but I do have the skills, that were taught back in high school, skills that I may add, are not taught anymore to the greater student body. In the world of LD, parents have to watch out for the junk science, and what to look for. This ability and skill, can be applied in other areas. I have never found a problem with think tanks and their methods to arrived at a conclusion. In fact there is a difference between a research report, and a study. I often interchange the words, as most people do. This particular study, used the polls that were taken in that year, plus other previous polls, to come to a conclusion, that points in the general direction that support for school choice is a lot higher with parents, than you think.  In fact, if I have had a question on the data, or conclusions, there was never any trouble making a phone call or e-mailing them, to questioned them. In fact, there response is quick and within 24 hours, and not like the public education system. I made 2 phone calls to the local board, three weeks ago, and I am still waiting for the phone call. Service is not a thing that schools and boards practice.

Posted by Nancy on 03/18 at 08:58 PM

All I can say Nancy is that you are very naive. Nobody in public education takes FI or CDH seriously as research agencys, they are propoganda mouthpieces of the radical right profiteers, the corporate gougers, who pollute, exploit, monopolize and don’t like to pay their taxes. Some of them like dogs and small children.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/18 at 10:19 PM

“Answer a simple question. “Do you support giving public money to private schools, be they religious or secular, under any circumstances?““

Funny Doug, when we gave public money to private Catholic high schools it made them public.  Hardly privatizing education then did it?

The hysteria around how you define privatization is just that, hysteria.  Again read what I wrote just in case you didn’t understand it the first time.

Posted by Doretta on 03/19 at 05:35 AM

Doug, define privatization of public education.
While you are defining it, do not forget the privatization of curriculum, text books, testing companies, consultants, and corporate sponsorship, all intent on making a profit, with the blessings of public education institutes. The role that is played by for-profit firms in our public education system, and their influences are quite evident throughout the public education system.
Doug, if you did the exercise, you and many others would discover, how dependent the public education is today and how the public school system is much more dependent upon the for-profit mentality than most of the alternatives you believe will erode the integrity of that system. Furthermore, how the public education system, works on the behalf of for profit tutoring companies, to supply them with a steady supply of students, who are in need of help in improving basic foundation skills, and at the same time, the not-for-profit tutoring organizations are viewed as and presented to parents as being second rate, and poor in quality. JumpMath comes to mind, a program that should be in all schools, but in the present day, the public education system loath a program that would upset the for-profit firms, because it would undermine their profit margins.
I resent being called naive, but I had worst names thrown at me, by others within my corner of the world.  People like you wear myopic glasses to avoid all facets of an issue, and evidence that is contrary to your position or stance.

Posted by Nancy on 03/19 at 07:30 AM

If parents of children in private schools get a tax deduction for this that is privatization.
If a voucher is given that a family can redeem at a private or public school that is privatization.
If the government were to forgive private schools from property tax, that is privatization.
The way charter schools are run now by corporations now in thr US, that is privatization.

Any financial support in any form from government to support private education is privatization.

The only schools that should be allowed one penny of government taxpayer’s money must be one of the four public systems in Ontario that are democratically elected, use only certified and federated teachers.
Any move of any type away from this and towards the support of private schools (or independent schools) is privatization. Vouchers, if they can be redeemed at private schools are privatization.

I understand that you are afraid of that word t SQE because it is very unpopular, as is any form of privatization but it is clear in Doretta’s post in responce to me, even in the Myths argument that this is privatization, period, full stop.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/19 at 07:44 AM

your spinning clearly supports your mandate to “provoke” the folks identified in your post at your website Doug.

There is much offered at SQE that whole school communities can walk away with and learn from including free proven programs and a support base for information that helps parents and families….not unions in particular.

That I feel absolutely kills you and your arguments.

Hey but continue because your posts are the best case yet for moving to alternatives in Ontario. I’m pretty sure that you’ve now given SQE exposure on your site that their visits here have sky-rocketed as a result. More folks will have the chance to see what’s here, then decide that how you’ve painted this organization is, well, just more spin.

Posted by Chuck on 03/19 at 07:56 AM

I am confused.  SQE’s website says its mission is “To signifcantly improve student learning in Canada.“  Its March 2010 newsletter says its “goal is to provide reliable information on successful educational practices.“

How did this get derailed into a public vs private school discussion.  What a waste of time !!!

The problem is in our public schools where, in many cases, students aren’t even learning the basics well.  Translate this into “they aren’t being taught well.“  Most students need to be taught.  There are very few, especally at an early age, who can become literate and numerate on their own without having been taught the basic skills.

‘Time to focus on what is really important for everyone.

Sol

Posted by Sol on 03/19 at 09:15 AM

The Canadian and American public education systems, are considered a mixed of privatization and state run models. In fact most education systems throughout the world is this type of model - the mixed model. The funding models, are based on the mixed model, where privatization of curriculum is crucial for the public education system. It is crucial, for various reasons, but buying curriculum through private firms has always been in public education systems. Schools and boards, have always recommended for-profit tutoring agencies, in their literature, for students who are struggling. More so in the last 10 years, because of the cut backs, union contracts, that have impacted tutoring based programs in the local schools, by certified teachers. For areas that have limited private tutoring services, schools and boards, are now offering tutoring services by senior high school students, to tutor other students and where the tutors will received payment in a form of a vouchers, for any post-secondary institute. Adult education, , including retraining is being provided by private colleges, work contracted out by our public education system. That certainly is a form of semi-privatization.
Doug, you cannot have it both ways, insisting on state-run schools, while other parts of the education system, are privatized such as operations in providing curriculum, cleaning staff, and other areas, where the education system no longer can provide services that are normally seen as part of public education, and services provided by the state. There is a large percentage of public education funding being contracted out by our public education system, in various forms, and for the most part is directing the flow of education dollars outside the public education system. For example, there is little research being conducted within the top layers of the education system, and for the most part, it is hired out to private consultants, rather than using in-house staff.

Posted by Nancy on 03/19 at 09:26 AM

Sol - SQE didn’t derail anything. Doug’s made a bad attempt at doing so but what’s happening instead is that he’s hoisted SQE up to a profile free of charge and when enough folks, thanks to Doug have visited and read through the website they’ll find the truth not spin.

Posted by Chuck on 03/19 at 09:32 AM

Yes Sol, SQE is consistent with its mission to improve student learning.

It is offering free material and advice for parents to be able to help their childen.

This free materials are also available to teachers if they choose to make the effort to do so.

Through these materials SQE is trying to fill the need of students to learn the basics since there are indeed a lot of students that do not learn the basics because they “aren’t being taught well” by “certified teachers” in our public system.

I have used the free Stairway to Reading program with my son and I can give testimony to its effectiveness.
Using this program I was able to help my son read well even though I am not a “certified teacher” and I speak English as a second language.

Why are not public schools and certified teachers using effective teaching methods?

Why, if we want our children to know the basics we have to do it ourselves, after long hours at school and at work if we already pay for this public service ?

Mr. Little is a former history teacher, a former teacher’s union member that considers that the current education system in Ontario is the second-best in the world ?!?.

Although this system is already very good ?!? - in Mr.Little’s opinion - he would like testing to be stopped because it hurts the children and more money for smaller class sizes.

In Mr.Little’s opinion we cannot express opinions about teaching because we are not “certified teachers”.
As you can see from his posts whether or not children learn how to read, write and do basic arithmetic is irrelevant for Mr.Little!

Sol, take a look at the materials and make up your own mind!

Posted by fromEurope on 03/19 at 10:13 AM

I have never said that SQE is ONLY about privatization but it promoes privatization as a solution at every turn. Even this thread is about so-called superiour results of privatization of eduction. Even the sources cited above advocate public funding of independent schools.

I want to hear Malkin and Doretta say the John Tory proposal to fund religious schools was wrong. I want them to say vouchers and corporate charters and tax credits for private schools are wrong. I don’r believe they will do that because as much as they skate on this topic, the board is led by people who do not really have a problem with privatization which means favouring policies that will have the effect of making the system more private and less public. Same argument as medicare, the more public it is the better, the more private the worse.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/19 at 01:01 PM

“Malkin Dare - Hard right privatizing zealot.“

Give it a rest Doug. You even spin your own words to disguise your bias.

You sure sound more like Michael Ignatieff every day. He’s another dude who thinks it’s all about him. Look how many times in one post you use the word “I” - “I want”, “I want”,
“I don’t”.

Time to cut out and enjoy a beautiful weekend in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario.

Posted by Chuck on 03/19 at 02:05 PM

Has anyone considered that Doug’s doing this blog a huge service and coming here for his own inspirational ideas for his website…because he’s fresh out of things to discuss?

Just saying…............

Posted by notasheep on 03/19 at 02:06 PM

Iggy and Dalton both are a long way to my right. As a matter of fact, Jack Layton is to my right but not by as much.

I love you guys. You are a case study in “how can people look at the same world and yet see something totally different? “ Sandy over at the othe place is getting bit irritated however. I still love her but she is in a snit with me.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/19 at 02:18 PM

There are folks in society who live in their world suurounded by folks who work in the same field, read the same research, belong to the same unions and parrot the same rhetoric…and have little time for anyone who doesn’t drink the same kool-aid.  I try to keep their limitations in perspective when they’re forced out of their cocoon wink

Posted by John L on 03/19 at 04:17 PM

SQE-The only voice for research based instruction in Ontario; of course this skill must be taught to the teachers.We need to talk about that more.If we train them,they can do much better with the children.
CHARTERS-THEY ARE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO DOMINATE EDUCATION-THEY DON`T FOCUS ON THE DETAILS-THEY LEAD WITH BROAD STROKES..So to serve the children Malkin Dare and Doretta say-what about charters-it`s a consequence due to the deaf ear,arrogance and daily educational malpractice school boards engage in due to lack of leadership at the Ministry level and absolute disregard for the research.After training many First Nations teachers,one principal got up and said the Nelson Workbooks on the Trillium list are absolute garbage..what is this Trillium list anyway?

Posted by Jo-Anne Gross on 03/19 at 04:20 PM

Joanne there is other voices out there, but I am afraid their voices have been muted, for fear of losing their grant money, from the government. The LD associations, literacy groups have been voicing for research based instruction for a long time. Let’s not forget the poor curriculum. Nelson workbooks and other workbooks that are provided are poor, and even some parents with a PHD, may have a hard time trying to determine, what the question is asking for. Throw in the poor software choices available at the school level, and the rules governing use of the software, very few children are allow to practice and reinforce lessons. Schools are not allow to use the free software, and other programs that may assist to help the teacher, and add the weak technology skills, that does not allow the school to put up homework sites, to assist children at home, that is a school that is hog-tied, and very dependent on the whims and wishes of their superiors. As for the Trillium list, it is set of books and material, and where schools or the boards, are allow to make selections from this list.

Posted by Nancy on 03/19 at 05:17 PM

The Trillium List (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/trilliumlist) contains the names of all the texts that school boards can legally purchase as class sets. The list includes a lot of very poor textbooks and excludes a lot of very good textbooks. For example, there are no systematic phonics readers or sequential math textbooks on the list. This makes it very tough for teachers to deliver good instruction.

Posted by mdare on 03/19 at 06:15 PM

This list makes me very very suspicious-it sounds like a lobby play but the giant publishers.

Posted by Jo-Anne Gross on 03/20 at 03:48 PM

The province determines the curiculum, the publishers cut their cloth to match the provincial curriculum.

Posted by Doug Little on 03/20 at 03:56 PM

Doug, not what I have been told by the publishers. A long time ago,I wanted an extra math workbook for home, and I was willing to pay for it. The school said no, the board said no, and once I reach the department of education, they directed me to a maze, and I am still waiting for a phone call. I phoned the publisher, and the publisher was very informative. First workbook was no longer being published, and the math series that was purchased for the province, only 1/2 of the program was brought. They went on to tell me, that the publisher is the one who creates curriculum, and than the province steps in after the process, and decides what they want in the text book. This does apply to math series, except in the word problems and text, where the province’s information can be inserted. In areas in science, math, language arts, french, it is quite common for provinces not to buy the whole package, which would include the CDs for the students. Often what is not purchased is the part of the package that is meant for the students.
At the level of the education department, yes they plan and make their own curriculum, and than they go out shopping for the best fit, and then the province’s information is inserted where ever appropriate.

Posted by Nancy on 03/20 at 04:53 PM

We then have to shoot the arrow to the Ministry of Education for choosing curricula that does not reflect the empirical research on how children learn and especially how children at risk learn.
This is information I have been looking for.
After all when we ask,who is to blame for ignoring research based instruction in the classroom for optimal results-one guy says point the finger and blame the Universities who train teachers,now you are saying Doug,point the finger at the Ministry of Education.Thank You,this is powerful information.So that is why many publishers sell such injurious materials as far as learning outcomes for the students.

Posted by Jo-Anne Gross on 03/21 at 07:23 AM

Jo-Anne, in part the publishers design curriculum, where it creates economic activities in other parts of the system. Where there will be a demand for tutoring resources outside of the public education system, and to ensure change over of curriculum every 5 years. Very profitable are the education products, and it would be far less profitable if the curriculum was research based products. Check out studies, and who funds them. Often it is the leading education publishers, and studies that reflect the latest education fads. Whole language approaches are still strong in our education system, and one of the reasons is our education publishers love to fund studies of this type, because it will ensure a changeover every 5 years or so.

Posted by Nancy on 03/21 at 11:58 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: