Did I not say privatization is the real agenda. Lets trust the education system to the folks who brought us “The Great Recession” brilliant. Diane Ravitch has the solution and the answer to this failed direction.

http://www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/83950.html/

BTW some successful business people are women, not “businessmen”.

The general lack of trusting was spawned by unions.  Now they’ve become corrupt.

I had my children in a profit-run school in Singapore.  Although the schools they attended in Tokyo were very good (we had choice there also) in Singapore my children thrived, as did the rest of the children.  The union-run monopoly here in Ontario couldn’t compare:  children here couldn’t read and phonics wasn’t taught.  Things seemed chaotic and there was an enormous amount of wasted time.  There was curricula on self-esteem building while bullying and bad behavior (no teacher intervention) was rampant.

Bottom line is I want educational excellence for children.  So, if need be, I’ll take a school who wants my business, even if it’s being run for profit, any day over these union-run monopolies in NA.
The only difference is that in NA we’re lining the bureaucrats and unions’ pockets as opposed to business people. 

My experience is that business people do a fantastic job, and union-run monopolies do a dreadful job (if you could call it a job!).

Of course we note your teacher bashing and union bashing attitude but heavily unionized Canada still outperforms Singapore. Heavily unionized Massachusetts outperforms all of the non-union states. Go ahead and go private. Just don’t ask for a public subsidy for it.

No, Mr. Little, Canada does not.  I lived in Singapore.  I was impressed with the children there.  Unfortunately, here I’m not, and it’s not their fault.  That’s why I joined SQE.

Quit hiding behind your accusations of me being a teacher basher—you know better than I do how bad our system is over here—you worked in it!

Frankly, Mr. Little, when was the last time you told the truth?

It seems that you can’t handle the truth. The truth is as I have laid it out. The fact that you don’t like the truth does not change it.

Look at your own posts. Teachers would interpret that as bashing.

There are two main international comparisons of student achievement - the PISA and the TIMSS. Singapore did not participate in the most recent PISA. In the latest TIMSS (http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/08/TIMSS_Ontario_Report_2007.pdf), Singapore placed

2nd in grade 4 math
3rd in grade 8 math
1st in grade 4 science
1st in grade 8 science.

In all cases, Singapore students significantly, and by a huge margin, outperfomed Ontario.

First of all, like Hong Kong, Singapore is an artificially created ministate nevertheless it has invested heavily in public education which Linda Darling-Hammonds credits for its success, not private education. And reading???

Part 1

As Ravitch has stated in her new book, the business model should never be applied to a public school model, when it comes to the students and the teachers. The heart of education, is not something that can be easily measured using a business model. A business model, that do not much care about following students along the spectrum of other measures, such as the literacy rate in the adult population.

“Business techniques are necessary in education in relation to buying supplies, managing resources, building and maintaining facilities, and so on. But applying the principles of business to instruction leads to distorted priorities. It leads, for example, to an overemphasis on test scores as the sole measure of schooling, simply because it is a measurable. Business methods do not acknowledge that the non-measurables may be even more important than what is measured. Business thinking may also lead to tinkering with the data to persuade the public that the outcomes of schooling are better than they really are. For example, the business executive running a school system may boast of the high school graduation rate, which makes for good headlines, yet ignore the remediation rate of the same graduates when they enter a two-year community college. Business people who get into education may not realize that the data they collect may not be the best way to evaluate schools, teachers, students, or the quality of education.”
An Interview with Diane Ravitch: “The Death and Life of the Great American School System

http://www.publicschoolinsights.org/interview-diane-ravitch-death-and-life-great-american-school-system

I would venture to say, that the public education system does a fine job on “exploiting   their students, scrimping on the quality of their education so that the owners can afford fancy cars and trips.”  I would change the last few words to this sentence: The public education system does a find job on exploiting their students, scrimping on the quality of their education, so that the top levels of the education system, can afford their fancy buildings, their equipment, and their well paid salaries. This includes the top brass of the teachers’ unions who does another fine job, on supporting the other structures within the public education system, to maintain the status-quo; the built-in inefficiencies.

In this interview, Ravitch ends with: ” I have long been a critic of the status quo, yet with this book this charge has been hurled at me. I am still a critic of the status quo. I think the quality of education i far from what it should be. I would like to see our schools radically improved. I would like to see far better preparation of teachers, so that every teacher is a master of his or her subject (at least one, preferably two) and has learned the skills needed to teach the subject well. I would like to see a coherent curriculum in every school that goes far beyond the basics to include history, geography, civics, literature, science, foreign languages, and physical education, beginning in the elementary grades. I would like to see a general recognition that children and families today are under many stresses, and that poverty has a large and deleterious impact on children’s ability and readiness to learn. I would like to see more professionalism in education, not less. I would like to see an informed press that could see past the glib promises of the so-called reformers and that had an understanding of education far broader than our current obsession with data based on standardized tests of basic skills.”

Part 2

At this point, after I read that, I further explored this line of thinking. To my surprise, Ravitch and other important leading people in education are coming down to the same conclusions, as SQE has suggested.

“But some things have remained constant within this technological whirlwind. The ability to read and write well and the ability to calculate and analyze numerical data are still skills that anyone who wants to succeed in higher-value, higher-paying jobs in the information economy needs to master. Indeed, even in our personal lives, being able to understand and contribute to the public discourse on today’s major issues, e.g. the looming pension crisis, requires good literacy and numeracy skills.’ 

I read many different discussions, papers, essays that has taken place over the last few months. One that struck me as of two opposite viewpoints converging, and finding common ground on curriculum. Ravitch, and others like her are advocating for the same thing, to end the wars in public education, by providing a well-rounded education, along with the basics.

The essay called, Dreams of Better Schools, by Andrew Delbanco, concludes,

“If there is to be progress in the schools, we need more of this kind of moderation. Otherwise we will remain caught between the usual warring parties: pro-teacher-union verses anti-union groups; those who favor mayoral control against those who prefer community control; devotees of phonics versus “whole language” theorists; “open classroom” versus fixed-seat advocates; those who believe in “pull-out” groups versus those who believe in whole-class learning; those who believe that tests motivate academic improvement versus those who think tests hold teachers unfairly accountable and create a climate of fear; those who think the formative period is early childhood against those who are sure it is adolescence; those who see private initiatives like Teach for America (TFA)—which recruits teachers straight out of liberal arts colleges—as an answer to teacher burnout against those who think TFA gives municipalities an excuse to cut school budgets.”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23377

Do you expect me to disagree? I agree with everything Diane says above. Somehow you seem to believe that only SQE and the right wing care about reading, calculation, writing etc. This is nonsense. The progressive education community believe that it is SO important that more and more kids every year do better in reading and math that we need to spend vast amounts of new money and spend it overwhelming on schools that do not do well which are overwhelmingly congruent with poor schools.

The situation is too important to allow cheapskates any involvement in the solution.

Quite a few progressive educators do not like what Ravitch has written in her new book. She is recommending a public education structure, that will dilute the political and power bases of the unions, and the other structures, where power is given to the local school, and principle.

“‘Old-Fashioned View’?

To the Stanford University economist Eric A. Hanushek, who is both a critic and a friend of Ms. Ravitch’s, the book’s endorsement of neighborhood public schools, the professional wisdom of teachers, and a strong, broad curriculum represents an “old-fashioned view of education.”

“The evidence is that the old-fashioned schools that she rather likes weren’t all that good,” said Mr. Hanushek. “What U.S. schools did best was get large proportions of the population to go through secondary schools. Then things stalled in the sense that achievement levels weren’t that high. It’s not something we should be nostalgic about.”

http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions/14055820-1.html

“There is in the final chapter a series of statements, each of which begins the same way:  Our schools. If you take nothing else from this review, the list that follows should convince you of the value of the book.

Our schools

... will not improve if we continually reorganize their structure and management without regard for their essential purpose

... will not improve if elected officials intrude into pedagogical territory and make decisions that properly should be made by professional educators

... will not improve if we value only what tests measure

... will not improve if we rely exclusively on tests as the means of deciding the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools

... will not improve if we continue to close neighborhood schools in the name of reform

... will not improve if we entrust them to the magical powers of the market

... cannot improve if charter schools siphon away the most motivated students and their families in the poorest communities from the regular public schools

... will not improve if we expect them to act like private, profit-seeking enterprises

...  will not improve if we continue to drive away experienced principals and replace them with neophytes who have taken a leadership training course but have little or no experience as teachers

... cannot be improved by blind worship of data

... cannot be improved by those who say money doesn’t matter

... cannot be improved if we ignore the disadvantages associated with poverty that affect children’s ability to learn

... cannot be improved if we use them as society’s all-purpose punching bag, blaming them for all the ills of the economy, the burdens imposed upon children by poverty, the dysfunction of families, and the erosion of civility.  Schools must work with other institutions and cannot replace them.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/28/841289/-The-Death-and-Life-of-the-Great-American-School-System

“Ravitch ends her book as follows: 

At the present time, public education is in peril.  Efforts to reform public education are, ironically, diminishing its quality and endangering its very survival.  We must turn attention to improving schools, infusing them with the substance of genuine learning and reviving the conditions that make learning possible

And Ravitch begins her book:
“Rather, I want to turn back to how Ravitch concludes her introductory chapter, in which she explains her intent of the book. She acknowledges that she does not have all the answers, she offers no silver bullet or magic feather.  She does claim that

We must preserve American public education, because it is so intimately connected to our concepts of citizenship and democracy and to the promise of American life.  In view of the money and power now arrayed on behalf of the ideas and programs that I will criticize, I hope it is not too late.’

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/28/841289/-The-Death-and-Life-of-the-Great-American-School-System

Doug there is money and power behind both the conservative and progressive movements and both are indeed upset. The progressive movement upset with the move toward local school autonomy, because they would loose their power base, on what and how curriculum will be taught. The teachers colleges, do not much care what Ravitch is advocating, because it would mean a drastic structural change at their level. The teachers unions, will be force to change as well when their present day actions, are often the opposite to their words, espousing education for all.

As I said in the previous posts, there is a converging of viewpoints, and where viewpoints such as yours, will not be tolerated because it is advocating for the status-quo, by maintaining the structure as is.

Nothing anti-union in the book. Read every page. Nothing about to disgree with here either Nancy but I assume a lot SQE would take issue with.

Are we all still in denial that privatization is the hidden agenda here? Looks a little thin after this post. Profit is as much of an evil concept in education as it is in health.

More democratic control = good

More private control = bad

Part 1

Doug, you are what is wrong with the teachers’ union. It is what you represent, what you say on these posts and other posts, where I know quite a few teachers would disagree with you. You do not care about students, because you have fixed ideas about intelligence, relating more to the early 1900s thinking of intelligence, along with fixed ideas of teaching methodology. It really shows up, in your arguments when you defend your particular brand of education philosophy. In the end, you don’t care if any of your students understood their lessons, just as long as they understood what they needed to know, mandated from above.

Progressive educators, do want their students to have critical thinking. The stuff that makes a true democracy. It is the same stuff that unions do not like, because they would have to upgrade their reasons for a strike and move away from arguments that they are doing it for the children.

Progressive educators, not all mind you, do not want the general population questioning them, especially on education issues. Just like the politicians, do not want the general populace questioning them on issues of going to war. People with a full set of critical thinking skills, would be a pest, in demanding evidence-based reasons on the whys, and consideration for variables that cannot be measured effectively, with hard data. Ravitch, has come to understand that, and where the solution lies with the small community schools, and not the system that you advocate for where many students are left behind.

Nothing I have read so far is anti-union that is in your face kind of , but what would you do Doug, when the teachers’ union contracts, will have to deal with many small groupings of schools, or a union working cooperatively with the schools, the communities, parents on issues that union advocate against. Unions do not like well grounded research-based methods, because they often create more work for the teacher in the classroom, in the beginning. Ravitch is advocating research-based methods, along with the basic essentials, needed for critical thinking.

Part 2

What you are advocating for, is more emphasis on reading and math, yet Ravitch says there has been too much emphasis on math and reading, that has narrowed the focus, where the other subjects such as geography are excluded. She is essentially stating, that the only thing our students know, are the basics, but they do not know how to think critically. The reason why, they do not have the general knowledge, the breath of knowledge to think beyond what is told to the students. This in turn, is bad for a democracy. Ravitch believes in a strong democracy, where people are allow to think and go beyond the prescribe practices of the day. The democracy as it stands today, forces people to become yes people, even though it will go against their best interests.

A teachers’ union, like the structure of the education department, are powerful institutions often having perceive authority by the general public, prefers yes people, rather than people who are questioning them on the issues. If the Ravitchs have their way, power would flow out to the schools and their communities, regarding curriculum content, the overall goals of the school, leaving the unions to take care of their original goals such as salaries, training, and the education departments to sort out the laws on working conditions, other policies that cut across the various parts of the education system, and time to do the proper research on school issues.

Doug, if you agree with everything that Ravitch has stated, than you must agree that the public education system has to change. By just stating more money is needed, without changing the fundamental structure of the education system, is not what Ravitch wants. She has stated, more money is not the answer, and one can pour all the money you want into the public education system, and the achievement results , and the other measures will not be impacted. The answer lies with fundamental changes of the structure, that prevents true reform from happening in the first place.

The latest example is the ELP initiative for Ontario. The latest coming from Hamilton.
” It seems strange, then, for the Dalton McGuinty government to eschew the collaborative model when it comes to providing before- and after-school care for four- and five-year-olds as part of its full-day learning program that will open at almost 600 schools provincewide this fall, including 20 in Hamilton.
The government’s draft legislation for full-day kindergarten requires that school boards directly operate before- and after-school programs for children enrolled in full-day junior and senior kindergarten. The draft legislation specifically prohibits school boards from partnering with local child-care providers to offer extended care.
The education ministry maintains school boards are to provide extended care so it is integrated with the core school day and staff. A seamless day is a good idea, but it’s not clear why that can’t be provided through collaboration with existing child-care providers which already operate in-school extended-care programs. Surely child-care providers are flexible enough to meet the province’s requirements.”

It ends with this; “If the legislation passes as is, parents will likely face fewer viable and affordable options for before- and after-school care. If existing child-care organizations lose their four- and five-year-olds, the cost of infant and toddler care will increase, making it even more difficult for parents to find affordable and trustworthy child care. And do we really want our very young children in the exclusive care of a school board for the whole day?
The province must back off on prohibiting child-care partnerships; instead it should develop tight guidelines for such partnerships. School boards need the flexibility to collaborate.”

http://www.thespec.com//Opinions/article/746196

Another example of structure faults, that may help to kill ELP, and give it a quick death. This was done to appease the teachers union, and no one else.

Nancy,

Your posts are such an irrational jumble one doesn’t even know where to begin. I won’t bother. Has anybody else told you the posts are too long and rambling.

The concept of allowing profit making is very different from the concept of encouraging competition. There are activities that we wish to undertake as a society that are difficult if not impossible to turn into profit making ventures. An example close to my heart is providing care for the severely disabled. Generally the budgets provided for these types of services are so tight any profit taking will impact those served. However competition greatly improves the situation of those needing services. When people can choose where to take the dollars government provides for services the organizations that provide innovative, efficient service thrive.

Given that teachers, or at least the loopier ones, regard pretty much everything as “bashing” I don’t think there’s much to be lost by being accussed of doing it. 

On the issue of Nancy’s posts I’ll read what she says place my own judgement on it’s value.  If some choose not to respond I believe that’d be a good thing.  One hopes the latest plan will be adhered to.

Given the enormous portion of our healthcare system offered by the private-sector the claim that it doesn’t work well is…a sign of someone who doesn’t do his homework.  I

I think pretty much everyone knows tht our health plan is about 70% public and 30% private John. Those who would hope to make it more private are bad people involved in “privatization”, those who would hope to make it more public, (drugs, dentistry, othopedic devices etc… on medicare) are good people who care about others.

Hi Rachel, welcome to our blog! Yes, I agree, undoubtedly there are sectors where private businessmen won’t be able to find efficiencies. Provision of rural mail services is a classic example. But regular schools clearly don’t fall into this category, given their lavish funding.

Lavish funding, ROFLOL, (Roll on floor, laugh out loud)

Please provide proof of “our health plan is about 70% public and 30% private” Mr. Little.

I believe you to be wrong.

This was quoted on CNN in comparison with Obama’s plan by Sanjai Gupta their health guy. You think ours is more public?

I googled “Percent of Canadian health system that is public” Confirmed by Wikepedia. 70% Too bad its not 100% but we can work on that.

Does the discussion concern the proportion of health care that is PAID for by public versus private sources - or the proportion of health care that is PROVIDED by public versus private sources?

Doug is right, but it is estimated that between 70 % to 75 % health services are deliver by the private sector. As far as I know, what Doug quoted are 2006 figures.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html

http://tinyurl.com/ycoo7s7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

One more thing that I should point out to bloggers about Singaporean students—they are instructed in English, however they go home and speak their native languages (of which there are several plus dialects in Singapore).  Despite this, they still ranked #1 or very high on international tests.
Being aware of this, it was one of the first things that clued me in to the fact that our educational system making excuses for poor results.  Ontario’s educators’ biggest complaint then was ESL students.  I used to think it was nonsense!  Because how could Singapore produce such excellent results, when nearly all of their students were not learning in their native tongue, yet in Ontario, our educators were saying that ESL students were such a problem?

The weak part of your argument Bev is that Canada does not have weak results. Our students read better than Singapore. Better than everybody except Finland and Korea only lately. The gap between the top three is almost insignificant.

Why did Ontario educators complain constantly about teaching children who spoke another language at home, whereas Singaporean educators simply took everything in stride, plus got exemplary results?

With an illiteracy rate of 40%, we are not doing well.

First of all Bev, the Singaporian students are taught English from the beginning. Students arrive in Canadian schools at all levels including HS with no English and need ESL. This is a huge difference. It is not the fault of the children or their families but it is a huge barrier in Canadian education to overcome but we do overcome it and place more people in post secondary education than any country on the planet. Our 15 year old read better than any country except Finland and Korea and the difference here is tiny. They read better than Singapore.

Canada does not have an illiteracy rate of 40% or anything even close to it. We have an illiteracy rate of 1%. We have what is know as a “functional ittiteracy rate” of about 15%. These people can read but their weak reading skills inhibit their ability to understand complex documents or medical information. You can’t just make stuff up Bev.

We have one of the world’s best education systems here in Canada. Can it be even better? Of course but it will cost a lot of money. The political will is lacking but as you can see the ELP and primary class size reductions will help.

ELP will not do one thing to boost either literacy rate, nor the numeracy skills of our children, because teaching methods are flawed. 
with the unions resisting good proven methods, all the money in world will not help our children to read any better.
If you were wise, Mr. Little, you’d be advocating proper teaching methods, because, I’m very sorry to say, we are not producing children capable of competing in a global ecomony, and Ontario’s manufacturing has been dealt a huge blow. 
Mr. Little, with Ontario’s tax base eroding because of the above, who is going to pay the public sector unions’s salaries and benefits?
We’re all in this together, Mr. Little, and it’s time your teachers’ unions woke up and smelled the coffee.

It must be frustrating for you to have the “secret formula” teaching methods like the Colonel’s secret recipe and none of the experts will listen.

The ELP will do amazing things for education in Ontario, just look at the McCain-Mustard research plus the endorsement of the capitalist oriented OECD, the human capital specialists.

The teachers have been seriously underpaid for generations. If you want the best people to want to be in education, like anywhere else, you have to pay. Of course we are all in this together Bev, you read the OISE poll I’m sure. People want more spent on education, smaller classes, more teachers and are willing to pay more in taxes themselves to make it happen.

What they don’t want is any public support for private schools, especially religious schools.

With regard to the claim that Canadian students read better than Singapore students, we are aware of only one international comparison of reading ability in which Singapore took part (Singapore did not take part in the PISA): namely, the 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) which looked at grade 4 students. Here are the top scorers: Russian Federation (565), Hong Kong (564), Alberta (560), Singapore (558), BC (558), Luxembourg (557), Ontario (555), and many more. The performance of the Singapore 10-year-olds is particularly impressive given that they took this test in their second language.
http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/07/07P091e.pdf

With regard to the claim that Canada has an illiteracy rate of only 1%, this is presumably based on the UNESCO literacy reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_rates).  Because Canada (like many other high-income countries) did not submit basic literacy statistics, UNESCO just plugged in a 1% illiteracy rate. Finland falls into this category as well. Twenty countries report higher than 99% literacy rates, for example Tonga and Armenia.

The literacy rate for Canada is at the 48 % mark, and where the score is 3 or more. For people who fall below 3, are our poor readers in one part or all of the literacy measures. There is 51 % of the population that falls under the level 3 in all or some aspect. These people are called the functional illiterate. Or as I and many others call the poor readers. The 1 % that is quoted by Doug, are the people who cannot read at all.
Again Doug, you are fooling around with numbers, but if you dig deep, there are over 50 % of the people who have low reading skills. It is the same in the United States, at slightly higher levels. As for Finland, I am not sure of the figure, but for Iceland, the functional illiterate are below 5 %.
Just because a person can read, does not mean the person is a good reader, for today’s printed world. Between the think tanks and the literacy groups. it is expected that the functional illiterate, will increase, rather than decrease.

As for ESL funding, that is being funded, by taking money out of special education funding. Have no way of proving it, besides my own personal observations, but in my province, increase in ESL funding, is a decrease in SE funding for grades 7 and up. SE students no longer received SE services after grade 6, unless you count accommodations. As Bev, has said, wake up and smell the coffee, functional illiteracy rates are rising all over the world, and at the same time, universities, colleges and adult schools adding remedial reading and writing courses. Often at this level, are the remedial courses that should have been taught back in grade school and the primary grades.

I have always maintain, if reading and the skills were taught properly in primary to grade 6, the literacy rate would increase, and where it could be maintain at the 90 % mark or higher.

Why don’t you take the literacy test they have online? It is interesting, and somewhat humbling. I just barely made a 4 in prose. But I score a 5 or a 94 % on information print. Don’t do it if you are tired, because I did that, and I had a problem slugging through some vocabulary.

Explore the world of the literacy groups, and one will be surprise what the true numbers are. I have always maintain especially for the rural areas, that literacy centres should expand to include children who are struggling in reading. It may be a solution where private services are few, compared to urban areas. But than again, it lets the schools off the hook, for a job that they are paid for, but not held accountable for.
By the way Doug, the numbers you are quoting, to lay the claim that our students are reading better than most countries, is the 19 % figure. The 19 % that are excellent readers. If you explored the literacy centres, it will tell you a different story on where the rest of the people fall under.

Nancy, You simply cannot go around calling the bottom half of Canadian readers “illiterate” people will laugh you out of town. The “functionally illiterate” in Canada are people who read below a grade 9 level which depending on how you measure it is always well under 19%, usually measured at 16%. My Masters degree was in adult literacy in Canada, I have presented to very large groups on illiteracy. You are the one distorting the facts.

Illiterate means cannot read = 1%
Functional illiterate means low reading level effects them = 16-19%

You better start to argue with the experts on literacy than. If you claim you have a degree in adult literacy, than you would know that a functional illiterate has evolved into a more meaningful one, for today’s standards. It includes a number of different type of print, and not just one.

The newspapers will soon again start reporting the literacy rate, once more and where are you, if you do not think that the figures are incorrect. I add another figure, in rural areas, it is up to 52 % for the functional illiterates. Again, it is people who can read, but they are not very good readers.

I don’t know who passes in your household, or who you see on a regular basis, but you must be one rare person who do not see the difficulties some people have when it comes to reading. What should take 3 minutes top to read a newspaper article, takes 5 minutes or more. Another thing that is popping up for this year, and probably be reported in the media at some time in the future, are the adult schools, now in every community that has more than a population of 500 or so. The federal government is providing the money for the adult schools, that more or less concentrates on remedial reading, writing and numeracy. The adult schools are being run by the private colleges, and doing an admirable job, from what I have observed in my area. As for the public education system, they have their hands filled, with handling the adult courses in the public colleges. Again here, part of the funding is federal.
Doug there has to be something wrong with the literacy of adults, than why is the federal government and provincial governments funding remedial courses at that level.  The retraining for new jobs, for the most part does not need a high level of literacy skills, yet most people are going through the remedial literacy courses, I know, because I qualify for government assistance in going back to school, but I still have to pass their tests, so I can skipped the remedial work. Even though I have not worked for almost 16 years, I am at the right age, being over 50, but giving the circumstances of my husband dying a year ago, there is exceptions. The only reason why I am going through this, I will increase my chances of getting a job and keeping it for the next 10 years or so, Plus I am surrounding by people who are doing the same thing, but are taking the remedial courses, before they can enter their field of choice. At least I can skipped that part, but from what I have been told, it is a real problem. Again, it is not that they cannot read or count, it just that they do not have good strategies in reading.

Over 2 years ago, the school told me that my daughter reading skills are above 50 % of her classmates. And in reading information material, she is above most of her classmates. This does not mean, she does not need targeted help for reading, and it only shows that I concentrated on math and science reading material at home. It was the only way, I could get her to read on a daily basis, and this is the reason why she is quite good at reading information text, and still lousy at reading prose text. Through all this, there was very little support at the school level, and it was not until she reach high school, where there is support, understanding, and some frank discussions on low literacy skills.

We have remedial couses in post secondary because we graduate a higher % of our population that ever before and more than anyone else. You cannot do this without this result. We believe in giving every kid a chance, don’t you? The population of Canada has never been more literate than it is today and it is one of the most literate in the world. There was no golden age when we were more literate.

With the advances that have been made in the reading research field, there should be nothing to stop our public schools producing students, who are proficient readers. To suggest that the K to 12 public education system are not capable of producing 90 to 95 % proficient readers, based on the concept, giving every child a chance, is a cop-out, and a way out for the K to 12 system.
It is also suggestive, that a free public education comes with future costs, where the adult picks up the costs of learning the basics, that should have been taught in the K to 12 system.

With reference to the percentage of our population that graduates from high school, in 2007 Canada achieved a 79% graduation rate according to the OECD, ranking 19th out of 37 countries and below the OECD average 9f 82%.
http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_43586328_1_1_1_1,00.html
Click on Indicator A1 (To what level have adults studied/) and then click on T_A2.1 (Upper secondary graduation rates).
Indicator A2.2 (Trends in Graduation Rates) shows a slight decreasing trend in Canada’s graduation rates since 2002.

With reference to Canadian literacy trends, the only indicator we know of is the Adult Life Skills and Literacy Survey carried out by Statistics Canada in 1994 and 2003. The average literacy score had not changed significantly during those nine years. Even more worrisome, quoting from the report, “the survey results suggest that Canadian youth aged 16 to 25 who had parents with little or no education scored lower on average in 2003 than similar youth in 1994.”
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050511/dq050511b-eng.htm

Ought to be able to, I love how outsiders like to set the bar for educators.

Canada has more people with a post secondary education as a % of the population at about 40%  than any nation on Earth. It is #4 in university grads behind Japan, Ireland and the USA.

Of course outsiders should set the bar for educators.
You’re public servants, and you are not giving our children the quality of education that they deserve.
Your unions refuse to allow good teaching methods into a system we’re payinjg for…

Do you tell the doctors how to prctice as well? It must be frustrating to hold all the secrets to good teaching and the experts refuse to acknwledge you. You must feel like the Flat Earth Society.

You might be surprised to find out that the union has very little influence or interest in teaching methods.

BTW is is one of the very best systems in the world.

I can attest further on a personal level, that when I have spoken to literacy centres, they are experiencing problems of having the correct resources and trained staff, to tackled the problems of poor reading skills in adults.

In many cases, if the schools had the correct reading programs, along with good teaching methodology and the ability at the school level to have final say in both, the literacy centres would not be experiencing the problems of obtaining the correct resources or trained staff. The centres would be able to include children who are experiencing difficulties in reading. At the present time, few centres offer anything for children, and in most cases the centres are located in high populated areas.

I can choose my doctor and get second opinions.
We can’t do that in most cases where our schools are concerned.
The unions sure as hell do have an influence on teaching methods. Just ask any educator who’s been bullied into
buying into the anyone of the flavour-the-year type programs and initiatives.

- semesters from non-semesters = union driven (teachers and method affected)
- balanced school day = union driven (teachers and methods affected)
- small class size caps = union driven (teaching affected)

I can go back decades but most here will know exactly the things that have been tried, failed and tried again that have been union-driven.

Up to and including the Ministry of Education until most recently.

All based on compliance with union demands.

Stop spinning to the contrary Doug.

None of those reforms were union driven or negotiated except class size for a period of time when in most provinces it was legislated away from collective bargaining. Now they just go after it politically.

Not union driven eh?  Here is the link for the Ontario Elementary Teachers’ Association.
After reviewing the site, I would think anyone would conclude, the teachers’ unions do have their fingers in a lot of pies. There is even a special section for political action.

“ETFO is engaged in political action at a number of different levels and through a variety of issues. 
The Federation lobbies the provincial and federal governments on issues of direct interest to its members, including those related to equity, social justice, and democratic reform.  Recent examples of campaigns that ETFO supports include the promotion of a national child care strategy and the push for proportional representation in our provincial and federal electoral systems.
ETFO attends the conventions of the three main provincial political parties and encourages members to participate by providing a subsidy for those who attend political conventions as delegates.”

I did find something interesting, the funding that is provided for SE students.

“The Special Education Grant provides 44 percent of the total special education funding on a per pupil basis.  More money is provided for elementary students than for secondary students - $623 for kindergarten to grade 3, $470 for grades 4 to 8, and $303 for secondary students.”

Now I can see why, students who have reading difficulties are having trouble receiving the proper reading programs.

http://www.etfo.ca/bargainingandagreements/pages/default.aspx

There was very little on advocacy for students on the behalf of this union. The general theme, appears to be, a happy teacher, is an effective teacher and in turn will drive student achievement.

I was waiting for some news, Nancy, never came. The federations give hundreds of thousands of dallars annually to the Liberals and the NDP. This does not count even more to the “Working Families Coalition” and other progressive organizations. They also mobilize thousands of volunteers across Ontario for provincial and municipal elections. They heavily triage the seats putting their maximum efforts into the 30 or so seats that are likely to change hands between the parties.

They consider the Tories to be the Anti-Christ in Ontario politics and so everything is geared to keeping them out. That does not mean they are happy this the other 2 parties. They continue to work on those parties issue by issue.

So it is about politics not about the kids after all?

So the union
a) is forced upon teachers,
b) paid for from the teacher’s salaries - that is our tax money -
c) then lobbies for the interests of the teachers without regard of the interests of the children and the taxpayers

and we are supposed to think this is a positive thing.

Mr.Little, be a bit more careful with the rhetoric, using terms like “Anti-Christ” when referring to a legal polical party that people vote for would make you a “democracy basher” and a “bigot” in the eyes of many!

That being said, kudos to the teacher union for organizing!

So far, by using our tax money through the teacher’s union dues, the teacher unions have indeed been very effective at helping to get elected the people they support at municipal and provincial level.

The teacher unions, using our tax money, have also been effective at propaganda.

* Just think about the ads on TV!

* Just think about how many people have come to believe that only their own child has a problem and that all the other children are doing fine!

They are made to feel guilty while their children does not get effective help.

That guilt is also helping to keep parents from openly talking to one another and finding out that probably half the students in the class have the same problems!

* Just think about how many people have come to believe that reading, writing and basic math are beyond the reach of 40% of the children and that that’s normal!

* Just think about how the union uses their so-called “expert” status to talk down to and intimidate anybody who dares to suggest that we can do better by approaching education differently and not spending oodles of money of what has already been tried and is not working!

1) Teachers themselves demanded a closed shop for the union in the 1940’s. In BC former Premier Vander Zalm made membership in BCTF voluntary, In 3 months BCTF had signed up 95% of the members.
2) It is only the taxpayer’s money before it is paid for services rendered. Union dues are taken after so at that point, they are not taxpayer dollars.
3) There is no movement to change any of this. OPSEU had a member go to the Supreme Court to stop them from spending dues on causes he opposed. He lost. Supreme Court says it is nobody’s business how the union spends money except the members of the union and they have internal mechanisms to change things if they wish.

The sustem does work very well for the vast majority of students which accounts for the high levels of satisfaction and the willingness to spend more.

Doug, it is a matter of time when the public will begin to question teachers’ union and their pretend stance, that children come first. Ditto for the other education arms, who claim they know what is best for children.

I bumped into a posting on another blog, taking Doug’s name in vain. Apparently, he is being paid to troll sites such as SQE, by the union. This I found interesting, to explore a bit more. Add the new information (new to me) on Working Families Coalition, a organization who only comes out on elections, financed by teachers unions, the major trade unions to help place politicians of their choice into the government, than they are rewarded by nice fat contracts by the new sitting government.

Funny thing though, Working Families organizations can be found in United States and Great Britain. The Canadian one is connected with the other two in their respective countries, but they have sites one can wonder on, unlike the Canadian one. In the 2007 Ontario election, over 1/2 million was raise, to put out their hate ads. This organization is a front for lobbying pure and simple. What makes this worse, is using the name, Working Families, pretending to care about ordinary working families.

Sooner or later, the pretend facade of the education system, will start to crack in Canada. Important information has been kept from ordinary Canadians regarding the school system. Organizations like the teachers’ unions , former teachers working in the education ministries keeping information under lock and key, that tells the other story of the failings of our education system.

The latest finding, is a position paper on beginning reading by the Canadian Psychologist Association. A position, that is against whole language approaches in reading. It was published in 1995, and is rather old, but it is further evidence that there is forces that are undermining the current positions inside our public education systems. No doubt, I will find more articles that are current, indicating that within our health and psychology systems, that they are none too happy about the current state of the schools, and children who occupies the classrooms.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_199511/ai_n8713619/?tag=content;col1

Nancy - could you please provide a link to the blog that says that Mr. Little “is being paid to troll sites like SQE.”

Paid by who? I think you’re going to need a link.

Perhaps Mr. Little will tell us directly here?

Well Doug?

Sorry, did not think to provide the link, because I thought it was common knowledge. I have seen this type of comments, while cruising through the education links on SQE and than the links on those pages. This struck me as interesting, since it dates back to 2007.

http://www.theschoolsweneed.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1680#Post1680

The above link- scroll down to the second post. Everyone will recognize one of the regular posters here.

The second link is the other blog mentioned in the above article. http://www.ednews.org/blogs/professional-teachers-or-political-union.html

I am still laughing on one of the comments.
Read the comments, when talking about Doug.

“Liberal for Vouchers
Said this on 4-10-09 At 09:42 amThank you “Messing with Texas.” Mr. Little certainly seems to view this issue in absolutes and makes sweeping generalizations. He is clearly an extremist, accusing all Republicans/Conservatives as wanting to “destroy public education.” I find his inclusion of teaching phonics as one of his examples of this sinister plot hilarious. And on the heels of these polarizing attacks, he preaches tolerance and peace.

Who’s the whack job?”

Americans have a humorous way of making a point.

Here is the G/M article titled: My Third Grader Still Cannot Read. I enjoyed reading this one again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/my-third-grader-still-cant-read-what-do-i-do/article1287576/

I am not paid by anyone to be on these boards. I have a good pension, I have ad revenue I have consulting work, I do some work for Vector Polling which keeps me very much in touch with public opinion.

Funny how you are a troll if you disagree but if you are Nancy or Chuck or John or Mr Sheep or Europe you are not a troll. Hmmmm.

Mr. Little isn’t paid?  Better that this is his passion.  If anyone were paying him they would definately be taking advantage.  I’ve never seen anyone work so hard

Keep me out of your spat, please.

  Doug is just a guy who likes surfing the blogosphere.  I think we owe him a debt of grattitude for the entertainment value he brings to the place.  If we didn’t have one we’d likely have to create one.

Have a good one.

Nancy “Apparently, he is being paid to troll sites like SQE”

You’ve provided a link but I don’t see that being shared.
I see no proof of his being paid here…simply an assumption.

Doug “I am not being paid to be on these boards”

Do you mean blogs Doug and are Nancy and Tunya’s assumptions incorrect?

I am not paid to be on these blogs whatsoever. I have a good pension, I am paid by my ads on my own site, I make money from consulting, I am paid by Vector Polling (not much commission) but I am not paid to be here. It is a labour of love and a service to the community.

Doug had paid positions at the OSSTF, up to 2009, according to his web site. A natural extension of job duties, are to monitor the web conversations. As they are doing it, they are being paid to do so. Governments, political parties, and agencies have staff that monitor the web. It is done for various reasons, but it is used mainly for keeping their interests in the forefront.

A current example, the alleged accusation,  accusing a MP of having her staff to write nice letters about her to the papers and on the web. As far as I am concern, it is a common place practice , but governments, unions, and companies will denied the practice. They can denied it very easily, by the mechanics of the net, where one can remain anonymous. For others like Doug, it is in their best interest to promote their viewpoints,  on the basis it would hurt their own pocketbook. They too can denied it very easily, because it is very difficult to prove, unless the person admits it.
Now, since we are on this topic, have you wonder why Canadian parents do not have a heavy presence on the net, as the American parents have. I am talking about a heavy grassroots presence, where they think nothing of starting a forum, blog, a facebook page, where parents talk back and forth, about the problems of the school system. In Canada, ordinary parents have to think twice on starting a web page, like the ones in the United States. Organizations like the LD associations have no place for parents to chat, to trade information.

One of the big reasons why, when parents do start one, they are met with the full power of government agencies, monitoring the site, looking for reasons to close it down. The bullying site on facebook, is the most recent example where there is heavy monitoring being done by social services, the education board, and no doubt the unions, and in the department of education. One way of closing down sites, is making anonymous comments either for or against, to divide the members of the site. I have seen this done on the American sites, especially on contentious issues such as LD and bullying.

SQE and other sites like it, are important because they are operating at changing the system from the top down. At the same time, they provide important information to parents, to educate them. SQE, and other sites like them, will survive no matter how much monitoring take place. It is unlikely, they will use the same tactics, as they do on parents’ forums or health forums, started by ordinary people. 

As for ordinary parents, Canadians often go to the American forums, to chat on the latest difficulties of their children and the school system. But I bet, SQE and others like it, have a large silent majority of parents, reading and educating themselves on education issues.

Parents rarely come out and do something in a public way, because we fear that our children, will bare the consequences at the school level. It is a valid fear, as I have seen it when a parent decided to voiced their complaints on a talk show, in the province that I live in. Too small in population, and where everyone seems to know who is talking. The parent’s children end up paying for it, by way of delay services, canceled meetings, or outright ignoring of the problems.

I have only done it once, and where I was more angry than fearful, to sit down to write a series of letters to the editor, deconstructing the arguments of an high-level education official. At the next school meeting, the board staff had the letters cut out of the newspaper, to be used as their reasons for not providing the help for my kid. It did not work, due to the American sites, and how they warn parents what to expect and how to overcome., bringing it back to the purpose of the meeting. The public education system, have a tendency to isolate parents from one another, and by doing so, they have more control over the education issues of the day.

Thanks, Nancy—an interesting and rather frightening read.  We’re not as free in Canada as we’d like to think we are.  I hope the readers of this blog from other countries make note of what you’ve written.  I always discourage people from immigrating to Canada if they have school-aged children.  If’s so obvious our government is not out to educate children:  they’re the unions’ puppets, and are willing to rob our children of the most precious gift adults can give children, an excellent education. 
Even though this is not hard evidence, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Nobody at OSSTF or the other feds even realized the SQE site or others even existed. I didn’t myself until after I retired. You are paranoid Nancy or you think this site and others are far more important than everybody else does. No I was not paid, then or now to keep track of these sites. They are just not that important.

Funny Bev discourages people from coming to get an education in Canada, what a laugh. Canada is one of the highest performing countries in the world and clearly the highest performing English speaking country in the world. I’m not sure how many people have a deep desire to learn Finnish. The private school business that prepares off shore kids for Candian universities os booming because they all want to come here. Give me a break.

Nancy - I take exception to your suggestion that parents haven’t yet mounted a presence in Ontario. They sure have…in a big way. There are examples of parents all over the province taking leadership roles, helping and assisting other parents. You just need to know where to look because there are like minded parents like us out there.

In my experience most parents want the leaders to do it all for them and want to do very little in the way of making waves as possible.

Parents have often been the ones in some ways who are just as guilty of stopping or opposing reforms as some other of the partners in education are.

I’m not defending Mr. Little but we have an assumption being made that he’s being paid currently to troll the ed. sites, while he’s denying it.

How is it possible to find out for sure and do we even want to?

I don’t find anything he say particularly enlightening, just the same old rhetoric I’ve heard for the last 18 years…kind of like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons -WAWAWAWAWA.

It’s clear to me that schools are now competing for students and offering choice is the way to get more parents to stay within the public system than leave it.

Fine by me. All choice is a step in the right direction.

I’m getting a little tired of this “he is getting paid” nonsense. I have lots of income outside of the blogs. I enjoy this and it DOES give me ideas for stuff on my own site but so do the daily papers and 100 other sources.

It gives me lots of insite into the reactionary mind as well.

Anything that adds to Doug’s knowledge base has got to be a good thing.  If he’s able to read and understand what he’s exposed to here it must be a win-win scenario for all of us, I say.

Bravo to SQE!