Goldwater Institute tells you everything you need to know.

doesn’t look like anyone’s posted a response here. Not much to add to this wonderfully positive post. Thanks Malkin!

“Goldwater Institute…”-Doug

Does it follow, then, that we should dismiss everything out of hand if it comes from sources we think are suspect as to their motives? 

OSSTF?  ETFO?  OECTA? OTF? CUPE?

They forever claim to be acting in the best interests of students.

Best to read the work they offer first, then decide on the value.

I suspect the work done by Goldwater is as credible as that offered by some of our “progressive” types.

If OSSTF did a study themselves and I were you, I would take it with a grain of salt. That is why the feds tend to use Environics or Ipsos Reid or a firm with an independent reputation that they must protect from accusations of bias. As soon as I see the words Bush or Goldwater I just start to laugh. So do the vat majority of non-political, middle of the road folks I suspect.

Generally speaking a “study” isn’t the same thing as a “poll”, so I don’t know that Ipsos Reid or Environics are entirely what we’re discussing just know.  As we’ve discussed repeatedly already a poll can be crafted to reach whatever conclusions the folks commissioning it want; thats’s why we must always know who commissioned it and how the questions were phrased.

Thanks for dropping by.

So when I posted this there was a challenge offered.  I see none has been brave enough to take it on.  Frankly I don’t care WHO challenges that school choice is a GOOD thing—the opponents can never prove it is a bad one. That’s the point no matter how Doug tries to twist it.

The Challenge stands.

Choice? Choice within the PS system is benign I guess. Some is good some is not so good but it is amazing in a system like TDSB how little interest there is in alternatives. I guess if you throw in immersion and IB it gets a little better but not that much. The fact is that you are beating a very small drum. Choice within the system is of limited interest and public financing of private alternatives is very unpopular, running about 15% in most polls I have seen. I have no doubt that the people who want it, want it very badly but most of the demand is religious in nature and that ship has sailed for all time. Now that it is clear that there is no overall academic reason to support private options interest will drop even further.

You have a tough row to hoe. Fewer than half the PCs support private choice and almost no Libs or NDP support it.

Sure you can say that minds will change but where is the evidence that any minds are changing? I don’t see it. If it does gain any ground, the oppositional forces will come out full force.

So Doug, here’s a question.  I’m a parent who wants school choice for his kids.  Tell me again why, exactly, I can’t have that choice?

We have had elections on this. Private choice lost badly. Polls consistently show only 15% want private choice. When you pay school taxes you are not paying for your child otherwise we would not tax childless people or people people who’s kids had graduated already. School taxes are paid into a collective pot and we democratically decide how to spend the money through school boards and the province. The democratic powers that be have said NO. You cannot have private choice. It is inefficient and potentially unequal to allow this.

We don’t just hand back road taxes and say build your own road. We don’t hand back library taxes and say buy your own books. We don’t hnd back police and fire taxes and say protect yourself.

Taxes are collected for the sole purpose of supporting public schools period. You want a private choice fine pay for it yourself. This is not just my attitude. This is the POV of 85% of Ontario.

Doug, hello .. the citizens pay taxes to have their future citizens well-educated so that the society continues to work well.

The problem today in Ontario is that we are not educating our future citizens well so the public education is not meeting its mandate.

Nobody is unhappy with public education in general because it is public.
That’s your narrow-minded, ideological pet peeve!
We are unhappy with the public education as it is today in Ontario because it has poor results, offers next to no choice and is not accountable.

If the public libraries cease to work well or the road would become impracticable, be sure I would try to do something about them too.

Yep, this was the discussion I was looking for.

*We’ve had elections on this.
No we haven’t.  John Tory?  What I saw there was a poorly thought out approach to a complicated question by a guy who hadn’t established the political constituency to pull it off.  (BTW, I like John Tory.  I don’t think he was the right guy to lead the provincial Conservatives, though.)  Not aware of any other elections that came anywhere near this issue.

*Polls show only 15% want private choice.
As others have pointed out, we need to see the poll itself, see the questions asked, know who commissioned the poll and have a sense of context in order to establish what to make of that statement.

I will grant that a majority of Ontarians are not clamouring for choice in the way I’ve laid it out on this site.  But then the case hasn’t been put forward, either.

“We don’t just hand back road taxes and say build your own road.”  Doug, that’s a howler.  A road is a road.  As long as it’s paved, anybody can drive on it.  In education there are real issues of customization: not just any kid is going to thrive in the school system as traditionally structured.  There is no Independent Placement and Review Road Committee to identify travellers with special transport needs.  There is no Independent Road Plan to provide a transportation plan for those who won’t thrive on a regular road.  Come off it.  Education is like health: it’s got to be geared to the user in a way that other governement services - roads, libraries, policing or firefighting, for example - don’t.

“Taxes are collected ... This is the POV of 85% of Ontario.”
Yeah, could be.  But as I said above, the case for choice has yet to be convincingly made.

“You want private choice, fine pay for it yourself.”  Ah, but that boils down to one’s understanding of “private choice” doesn’t it?  “Private choice” and “private school” are terms that are loaded with meaning for many.  Not all of us use these terms the same way.

Earlier this morning I got Europe to admit he was making assumptions.  Bet I can do it again.

The vast majority of people in Ontario know exactly what you want and the answer is NO. The argument has been made you need to get your head around the idea that just because you want it, you can have it. Don’t play the electorate for stupid. Funding for private schools is very unpopular in Ontario. You will not even hear Tim Hudak support it in the next election including tax credits vouchers charters etc. They have access to their own polling and believe me, if they thought it was a winner they would go for it. They know it is a loser issue and Dalton would beat them over the head with “Tim Hudak wants to give your scarce public school dollars to people who want a private education.”

You need to resign yourself to the fact that it is a BIG political loser.

My ideas may be a BIG political loser, but I don’t have to resign myself to it.

Besides, I’m not talking about funding for private schools.  I’m talking about funding for the people who use them.

“The vast majority of people in Ontario know exactly what you want and the answer is NO.”  I’m still chuckling, Doug.  You sound like an exasperated parent. 

Jim Flaherty created a tax credit for people who use private schools. Dalton McGuinty got rid of it. There is no big demand to bring it back in view of scarce public school dollars and a major deficit. Ask John L.  He will tell you we cannot afford it.

The public sees every single dollar spent on private education either as a tax credit or a voucher or any such scheme as a dollar that would be better spent on public schools. You will have a tough time. Nobody wants this option except people who would hope to use it. There are not enough of them to make a blip on the radar of public opinion.

Political losing propositions?  So was funding Catholic high schools 25 years ago, and it did cost the Bill Davis PCs, but so it remains.

McGuinty was right to kill the tax credit.  A tax credit makes the tax system more complicated; has revenue implications and will do squat for low income families who don’t have the income to make the credit meaningful.

I’ve never advocated a tax credit.  I’m advocating a rechannelling of the current funding stream.  Parents would gain a tool to express preference in a meaningful way.

Yes, there will be parents who reveal what some of us consider to be inane preferences (thinking of some recent posts about private schools).  But some revealed preferences will be significant.  See my earlier posts about Black Oak and Merle Levine Academy.

“You will have a tough time.”  Yes.  I expect that.  The case still needs to be made.

Ask Frank Miller how great an idea that was. Brought the end to a Tory dynasty, such is the power of fooling around with education funding. Bill Davis had the luxury of having 2 opposition parties already on side when he lost his mind. Private education has no such support.

Simply not going to happen. There is no political advantage for any party. Even the Tories now realize it means almost instant death to even let it be known that you are considering it.

Dave, if you want to bang your head on the wall for the next 10 years and achieve nothing be my guest. Just don’t say you were not warned.

“We have had elections on this”

We in Ontario have NEVER had an election or even the hint of an election issue around educational choice by parents.

So Doug you’re take on this is all wet.

Come to think of it, as a province we’ve NEVER even begun to enter into discussions on choice with governments with the exception of the Harris gov’t who, looking back should have move faster on that issue.

True discussion on parental choice. Nope. You must have Ontario mistaken for any of the other provinces who HAVE had the discussion and which offer and respect parental choice.

Doug, over the next ten years the head banging isn’t going to be done by people like me.  It’s going to be done by anybody who isn’t prepared to face the fiscal realities of retiring baby boomers and increasing health care spending.

Ask John Tory if we had an election on this issue. He has the scars. Listen carefully. Nobody in Ontario wants public funding for private schools end of story.

“Nobody in Ontario wants public funding for private schools end of story.”

Actually that just isn’t true.  The OISE survey found:
that Ontarians are divided
“between limiting funding to a single public system, continuing current
funding of public and Catholic systems, or extending funding to all private schools”

Strictly a minority position. Not party will touch it or they would be beaten senseless.

“Little strokes fell great oaks.”
—Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790) US Founding Father

You’re outdoing your spin-quota Doug.  Dave and the others are dead-on. An aging population with an ever-decreasing number of children will demand a whole new set or priorities be set and leave the ancient idea that education needs(or deserves) more money in the dust.

John Tory never campaigned on school choice. It was the opposition and Dalton’s war room in particular who wrongly defined that issue and they’ll try to do it again…only they’ll fail this time because not even in Dalton’s campaign will he run with an education platform because students are NOT better off and neither are boards.

No matter because boards will be forced to deal with cuts to textbooks and special education to pay for an ESL program few parents need.

When that becomes visually obvious the unions and Dalton will lose.

You are making my case. The public view is that with public education dollars so scarce we can ill afford to offer public money to people who think their kids deserve better than us but want the rest of us to foot the bill.

Um…no Doug. It is you that is making SQE’s case…and very well too I might add.

Keep up the great work sir!

The public correctly believes that support for private education costs money. The parents of the present public and catholic schools don’t want to share their resources with people who think they are better than the rest of us but at the same time want a subsidy.

Any service costs money!
The issue is the service the people get for their money.

The resources are not the resources of the public school board!
The resources are the resources of the society pooled in order to educate future citizens for the common good.

Yes and the public is clear that it does not want to fund private schools full stop.

“the public is clear that it does not want to fund private schools full stop.”

Wrong. No proof. Public has never been asked.

Full Stop.

No Doug, the very OISE survey you like to quote says that the province is divided over the issue of funding for private schools.  Hardly a clear result.

Again I steer you back to the original post:
There Are NO STUDIES THAT MEET THE CHALLENGE.

I expect the good people around SQE find it difficult to accept but the rest of the province sees the 2007 election as the last word on public funding of private schools for all time. Which political party supports it? Right none of them.

Why do we keep getting trapped in Mr.Doug false dihotomies public vs.private?

“Public charter schools” like Alberta has are a viable option.
Through legislation they are open to everybody, non-profit and independent.
They have been proven to work.

Excellent!

Well said Europe.

It is unfortunate the Mr. Little fails to grasp even the simplest of ideas.  He says he is a businessman - this should not be too difficult for him to grasp, but it seems beyond his understanding:

IF the public education system provided a truly excellent service that responded appropriately to the needs of students and parents, then all talk of private schools would disappear.

It is evident from groups such as SQE and many others both in Canada and the US, that this assumption of excellence is not true.

Mr. Little will continue to point to TIMMS data that put Canada at number 2.  However, he will remember that MendEd was formed because my colleagues and I see a huge gap between those scores and the students in our classes.  As much as he would try, he cannot gainsay our experience.  From the horror stories on these websites and others, it is clear that our view is not isolated, but the norm across the province.

Mr. Little, I left another of your assumptions lie, until now.  When I wrote that my colleagues do not agree with me - I did not mean in SUBSTANCE.  There is no staff room in Ontario where teachers are not moaning about the lack of scholarship and standards of behaviour and attendance in our students today.  How do I know?  I actually read the posts on websites like this.  From the TDSB to Timmins, teachers feel that we have ceased to be educational institutions, but have become credit factories.  Where my colleagues do not agree is my methodology - they want to be sheep.  They don’t want to say anything, and feel that I say too much.

Finally, given the current sad state of our system, I find it difficult to recommend the public system to parents.  Therefore, fromEurope’s suggestion carries much weight - a system of choice within the public system.  Maybe then our ossified Ministry, Faculties of Ed. and Unions will take notice and respond appropriately.

The trajectory of charters is corporate in the USA, KIPP, Imagine Green Dot, all corporations.

In an important labour dispute in Chicago it became important to rule whether charters were in fact public or private because different labour laws applied. Result? The judge said they are private schools.

Doretta, take a look at Wayne’s post above and check whether that is the tone you hope to see.

Nobody is arguing with you on credits Wayne, I fought to publish the Jon Cowans article and made suggestions for improvement. I told the Deputy Minister of Education Ben Levin on the phone that yes this is how teachers feel.

There are many people fighting “credit light” Wayne, first and foremost is OSSTF. Recent changes to this direction were made 100% in responce to this and Dombrowsky said so at the OSSTF convention. Wayne, you are hardly the thin red line between civilization and the abyss. Believe it or not, your union contributes a great deal more than you do. It is actually heard in the halls of power.

Really, Mr.Doug?
Are your remarks about “the Flat Earth Society”, or religion appropriate in any shape of form?
Is that appropriate language for a “teacher” for a “professional”?
Hold yourself first to the standards you profess!

I shudder when I think that you were in a classroom.
Definitely I would not have wanted you to be teaching my son!

Laws are different in Canada from the States.

Canadians in Alberta have found a way to make charter schools work.
Since there are so many of them I am compelled to think that many teachers have found them a good place to work in.

Really Doug?

Then why did you spend so much time at Mended talking about how we should make it easier for students to enter university?  How do you expect to get more students into those institutions without ‘credit light” as you call it?

Furthermore, if you think that this new ‘Growing Success’ policy is about toughening up standards, think again.  For every change making the standards tougher, there is a back door allowing boards to make it easier.  Have you actually read the document?  Or are you just listening to the hype again?

There are many ways to make HS easier Wayne without credit light. The first would be to go back to only 2 math and science compulsory credits. The second would be to lower class sizes and a third might be to have more support staff.

When I was in guidance I would often encourage students with weaknesses to take one fewer credit/year and do a victory lap in place of the old grade 13.

Even credit recover could work but it is being abused as credit light. They need to do all the work they missed or skipped not a drive by for credit. It is also set up with too much onus on the classroom teacher and not enough on the credit recovery teacher.

Excuse me for jumping to conclusions, Doug.  However, I thought your reasoning for more University grads was based on OECD projections. 

They aren’t predicting a need for more university grads of ANY stripe.  Are you aware of the jobs that the OECD is predicting we will need more graduates for?  Math, Computer Science, Engineering, and the Sciences.  ALL of those subject areas require MORE math and science, not less.

Given those requirements, your number one way is gone.  Number 2, lower class sizes won’t help for students who struggle with math and science.  Same for number three, more support staff.

Therefore, I ask you again, how do you expect to have more students in viable University programs without credit light.  Remember, we don’t need millions of anthropologists, art historians, and so on. (Nothing against those jobs, just that there isn’t a great market for them.)

At the present time we are overproducing math science and engineers. The country is full of unemployed engineers. Computer people are a glut on the market. Bill Gates and his pals keep asking to immigrate more for one reason. Supply and demand means lower wages.

Just because courses become optional does not mean you are forbidden from taking them. Those who want them are still free. They are just not compulsory. You want compulsory engineers? I didn’t think so.

Again, Mr. Little, if you truly believe that, you are hopelessly out of touch.  You also disagree with your own experts:  read the OECD study.  There are also numerous Department of Labour in the US and Employment Canada studies that point to a huge lack of qualified technical people in the maths and sciences.

If there were such an oversupply, then the almost six million people living in Bangalore India must be unemployed.  Most high-tech jobs in NA are being shipped whole hog overseas because - surprise, surprise - we can’t produce enough qualified engineering and science grads.

I have been working in the high tech sector as well as teaching for the last 30 years - don’t try to tell me we don’t need more people.

Again, the question still stands:  we need to get more kids into science and math - how do you propose to do that without lowering standards?

“The country is full of unemployed engineers.”

Er, Doug, where does that come from?

American study same true in Canada

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2009/db20091027_723059.htm

Uh I don’t see where the article says the U.S. is full of unemployed engineers.  It says that many taking employment in areas of finance and consulting.

Keeping in mind the wide variety of engineering fields, this would certainly require the expertise of their engineering training.  i.e. mining engineers do valuations for portfolios.

Bill Gates knows what he needs and he can’t find it in the U.S.

Please consider David Figlio’s study showing Florida’s school vouchers failed to show success.
I will stop there as I am not desirous of the dinner, . I would prefer to read Diane Ravitch’s The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education repeatedly.(  It certainly helped us beat SB6 in Florida!!!  )

Diane Ravitch’s book has set back the so-called choice (read privatization) movement and the testing movement by decades. It may never recover.

Bill Gates knows what he needs but he does not want to pay for it so he wants to immigrate a huge group of engineers and scientists to create a supply and demand situation more to his likeing.

He keeps going to congress to allow more tech immigrants. Congress says, “Bill we are up to here in American people.” He doesn’t like that because they cost too much.

Well people, here’s another case (as if we really needed it) where Mr. Little is dead wrong.  Way too many engineers he says - Canada doesn’t need them.  Here is a recent quote from jobBoom Canada:

“Luft says the need for engineers remains good, regardless of whether they are petroleum, civil, structural or aerospace engineers. “Because of attrition, we know we cannot fill the positions with the amount of people we have,” he says. There’s a reason for the shortages in scientific fields. “Our kids are not taking math. They are avoiding it like the plague.””

Here is the article: http://career.jobboom.com/workplace/market_trends/2009/03/02/8587441-je.html

What I particularly like is the last sentence quoted above.  It proves exactly what my colleagues and I have been saying, but doug has denied to the teeth (like everything else).

You must have been a pip as a guidance counselor - encouraging kids to enter job markets that don’t exist and ignoring ones that do.  As I have said Mr. Little, you are hopelessly out of touch.

The point is that the universities are cranking out all the engineers we need, after their training, they don’t want to be engineers because employers will pay them more to enter other jobs. The problem is that we don’t pay enough.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=4304

Same problem in Canada Wayne. We are producing all the engineers we need.

Are you going to force students to become engineers next? Who is out of touch.

Raise the pay and we will have lots of engineers. Funny how that works.

Doug, you truly can’t mean what you just wrote.  The point is universities are not cranking out all the engineers we need, otherwise there would not be jobs going unfilled because we can’t find qualified candidates.

The same holds true for the tech sector.  There are thousands of jobs going unfilled every year for the same reason.  Just because you don’t believe, doesn’t make it false. Either you didn’t read the quote, or the article - or you can’t understand plain English - I don’t know which.

It’s really ironic that you have kicked up such a fuss about religious schools, for you have created a religion of your own.  Only if we believe you will we find salvation from the jaws of mediocrity and surpass those infidels in Finland.  Unfortunately, like any religious leader, you provide no proof, no facts, no research.  Furthermore, you persist in your belief even when presented with proof to the contrary.

You are hardly in any position anymore to criticize anyone about religion - for we have seen the temple of Doug and it is full of false ideas and tin idols.

Listen carefully Wayne and I will explain this once more carefully. Industry tells government how many engineers we need, government gears up Waterloo, U of T and other engineering faculties to produce enough engineers which we do easily except AFTER the engineers graduate, they don’t end up working in engineering as the American article carefully explains. They go very heavily into other fields in both countries. EMPLOYERS will not match the wages to the level it would take to attract the huge numbers of people with engineers degrees back to engineering.

Wayne, what part of OECD, PISA, TIMSS do you not understand?

Canada is the second most literate nation on Earth and the gap behind Finland is almost insignificant.

You only think there is evidence to the contrary. It is you that dismisses the only multinational studies on literacy. Canada also does very well in math BTW.

The entire world looks at Canada as one of 2-3 leading nations in education. You can be in denial all you like with your fingers in your ears yelling I can’t hear you but it doesn’t change a thing.

Am I happy with where we are? No but there is one nation slightly ahead of us and 193 countries behind us. Not too bad.

Will you tell me next that this is not congruent with what you and your comrades see? That just doesn’t change anything Wayne.

“Bill Gates knows what he needs but he does not want to pay for it so he wants to immigrate a huge group of engineers and scientists to create a supply and demand situation more to his likeing.

He keeps going to congress to allow more tech immigrants. Congress says, “Bill we are up to here in American people.“ He doesn’t like that because they cost too much.”

Doug, with respect, for once you really don’t know what you are talking about.  On this one I certainly do.
Don’t go there you will not win.

The transcrips are there in congress. Bill keeps demanding more H1-B work visas. Congress keeps telling him to employ the out of work American engineers and scientists first.

“(It certainly helped us beat SB6 in Florida!!! )”
For readers who don’t know what SB6 (Senate Bill 6) is:
http://feaweb.org/florida-teachers-express-opposition-to-senate-bill-6
The education bill would have eliminated tenure for newly hired teachers, and would have tied a portion of teachers’ salaries to test score results

Hmmm…
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun/19/co-competition-boosts-public-schools/

“The study found public schools’ performance improved when they were faced with the possibility of losing students to private schools. At issue is the Florida Tax Credit Scholarships, which provide vouchers to children from poor families.”

OK, I warned you.  My son is an engineer who works for Microsoft.  The pay is very high.  They took almost a year to find someone to fill his position.  He works with some of the top scientists and engineers in the world.  Gates goes after the best and why shouldn’t he, he can afford it. 

I asked him as well why couldn’t they find someone in the U.S. to fill the job and he told me they couldn’t find what they were looking for. And is isn’t so that they can pay someone minimum wage either.  One of the reasons my son wanted the job was the challenging nature of the work , the opportunity to work with people who are icons in the field, and the excellent compensation didn’t hurt either. Plus he is a young man who looking for opportunity, a chance to travel—-a future.

As far as the comment about hiring engineers from the U.S. first, should RIM and the Perimeter Institute have left Hawking in the UK?  Should universities, research centres, hospitals, etc. only hire Canadian first?  Shouldn’t they be competing to recruiting the best in the world?  Well so should the U.S.

If you swallow the company line I guess that would be your answer. The US congress sure gives Gates a grilling on hiring US citizens first. Clearly engineers are leaving engineering in droves for hier pay in other areas.

“Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal,
they ought to be conclusive and sacred.”
—James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: The Federalist

I expect that we coach teachers not to swallow the union line either?  tsk

Doug, what part of EQAO don’t you understand?  33-35% of Grade 9 Applied Math students can’t reach the provincial average?

It’s really too bad you spent the latter part of your career outside the classroom - you might understand better what teachers in Ontario are up against.

Keep spouting your Dougma - it still doesn’t wash.

Excuse me, I’ve got to get back to my exams.

Meaningless data. Applied is already the minority of students most are in Academic and in is a small part of a small part which means about 10 percent of overall students. It was never better than this in any country and any point in history.

So you’ve moved from Dougma to outright lies.  In the 70’s about 50% of students were in the 4 stream.  Today, about 40% are in applied.  Do you have any actual historical stats to back up your claims?

Except maybe in the Temple of Doug there may only be 10% Applied.  Where is that BTW?  On Avenue Road?  Sorry, that’s the Hare Krishna Temple. 

I think you need a math lesson Wayne. First of all for students to below the provincial average is perfectly normal except in Lake Wobegone where “all of their kids are above average”

Read the post carefully Wayne. Where I come from 30% of the kids are in applied. According to you 1/3 of THEM cannot reach the provincial average which translates to one third of 30% ABOUT 10% of the overall students in Ontario are Applied students who are below average.

Do you need a calculator Wayne?

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/educators/eqao_results/gr9_eqao_results.htm

Here are the province wide numbers Wayne, about 1/3 in applied and 1/3 OF THOSE are below average.

Keep up the good work, the teachers of Ontario public schools are doing a fantastic job because no country does better than this at any time in human history.

In most countrys those kids would already be working in the fields, the rice paddies or running a punch press. In Canada we do much better than that for our kids. Looks good on us.

You need to be careful who you are calling a liar, especially when it blows up in your face.

Yes Wayne, I was there for all of that. Radwanski published all of that Data in his report in the 80s

TBE was 50% “Advanced” 22% “General” and 18% “Basic”. Thanks to our teachers and our wonderful public education system we are doing much better now.

Thanks for your contribution to those efforts Wayne.

Who cares about the TDSB average?  I’m talking about the Provincial average.  Where I was out 3%.  Provincial average - 38%.

BTW:  West Hill, where I teach math - 47%.  You’re welcome.

Again, Doug, it would be helpful if you would actually know what people are talking about.  Because you don’t read, you spout ‘facts’ that are not germane to the discussion.  Therefore, people think you are lying.

As far as numbers in Applied - no one in his right mind would tout TDSB numbers as the provincial average - get real.

I sent YOU the provincial numbers so that you could see only one third of kids are in applied province wide.

I was going to let that go by, but since you insist:  33.333333333333333% (or one third) is hardly 10% now is it Doug?

Wayne are you a math teacher? I can’t believe it. You said one third of Applied students were below average. Since Applied students are only 1/3 of all students we are dealing with one third of one third or 1 out of 10 students. BTW, below average is also a meaningless term. Level 2 means bearly below the provincial standard not below average. Only level one is really in serious trouble and this is an even smaller group.

I think is you took a class of NASA scientists as your class then tested them a significant number would be below the class average. Totally meaningless.

What really matters is that TIMMSS says we are doing fine in math. We have almost nothing to worry about. Thanks for your continued support for the public school system because only a hypocrite would continue to work for a system they did not support. I’m sure that does not apply to you Wayne. Wayne?

Actually Doug, not only is simple math beyond you - but English as well.

What I said was that 38% MET the provincial average - that is how EQAO reports the results.  That means that 62% did NOT meet the provincial average.

Furthermore, now that you have brought it up several times - you are a hypocrite.  Where is your high flying rhetoric about wanting a system like Finland?  How many posts have I had to go through where you talked about wanting EVERY student to do well?  Every student would include even the ‘meaningless, insignificant’ students in your terminology.

Thirdly, since you got it backwards - by your own terminology an insignificant number of applied students do WELL in math.  A disgrace for your vaunted system.

Fourthly, unlike you, I am attempting to work within the system to improve it BEFORE I retire - so there is no hypocrisy.  If you actually read any of my posts, you would know that I am attempting to make the system more accountable to the clients so that the people who want choice would actually want to choose the public system.

Finally, sir, it find it incredible that someone who has several university degrees cannot read critically, does not understand math and cannot think clearly.  You also dismiss children with Learning difficulties, applied students, and students who come from religious backgrounds. The only students you apparently do care about are those that are university-bound atheists.

I am sick and tired of the lifeless above neck union rhetoric you ally yourself with.  Try using the mind you were trained to use in university - read what people have to say, think about it, find some sources to back up your position then speak with some humility and decorum.  No matter how flippant and sarcastic I might be, I would never NEVER dismiss ANY ONE student, let alone a whole group of students as being meaningless - that is simply disgraceful, sir.

Read your own post “33-35 % of aplied math can’t reach provincial average”

EQAO does not work on averages it worl
ks on standards.

Averages are all the scores added up and divided by the # of test takers. Standards are a level you need to reach. Your figure is based on level 3-4, most of the remainder are only slightly below that in level 2. Read the guide about what the levals are all about. Be that as it may, TIMSS says we are fine and way above the OECD average so, once again thanks for all of your efforts and those of the comrades. You are making Canada a world leader.

I don’t intend to respond to you any more Wayne, you are ignorant and abusive and your tone is at a very low level of debate.

I have dedicated my life and every aspect of my life, teacher, professor, parent, journalist, trustee, magazine founder etc to the advancement of public education particularly for the poor. Talk to me when you have actually made a contribution of any significance.

I refer your tone to Doretta once again to ask if that is the low level of name calling and abuse she hopes to encourage.

You’re right in this instance Doug, I did mis-type.  That should have read “only 33-35% of applied students MAKE the provincial average.”

It is still a disgrace that our students are not doing better.  Sorry you don’t like my tone - but you had better start listening to the substance.  If not from me, then I am sure that there are countless others on this and the dozens of other sites you haunt who will be only too happy to make it clear.

Furthermore, you had better never denigrate any students any more.  It is still a disgrace whether you want to hear it from me or not.  Shame on you.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_04/24_04_finland.shtml

This is how you create a winning education system. No need for charters, vouchers, testing, all a waste of time.

Nobody has a better education system than we do Wayne, except you know who see link.

Ok, Doug, here is a quote from your own article:

“Finnish education policies are a result of four decades of systematic, mostly intentional, development that has created a culture of diversity, trust, and respect within Finnish society in general, and within its education system in particular. . . . Education sector development has been grounded on equal opportunities for all, equitable distribution of resources rather than competition, intensive early interventions for prevention, and building gradual trust among education practitioners, especially teachers. Equity in opportunity to learn is supported in many ways in addition to basic funding.”

Ring any bells?  Culture of diversity and respect?  You honestly think that dismissing all SE children as ‘hard to teach’ shows respect and creates a culture of diversity?  Do you honestly think that dismissing those students who do not do well in math as ‘meaningless’ and ‘insignificant’ does any better?  Do you honestly think that dismissing all those that practice religion as some quaint holdovers from an earlier, simpler age is in any way inclusive?

In short, Doug, did you read nothing in my last two posts?  Do you not see why I say that someone who professes the ideals espoused in the Finnish system, yet blows people off as so much dirt has to be a hypocrite?

If you actually read my posts, you would see that it is exactly what I said.  I didn’t need this article, thanks.  I already said this two posts ago - I’m way ahead of you.  However, thanks for again proving everything I say is true.

BTW:  That last line should have had a smiley - it was in jest.  Nobody is perfect.

Nobody is “dismissing” SE kids as hard to teach, they are hard to teach that is just a fact.