Very disturbing and clearly what we do NOT want to happen here.
but
why use American stories and assume they apply to Canada?
In many cases they do not: a point one of your patrons, Mark Holmes, has noted.

SQR does this way too often.
It can only hurt your cause.

It also speaks about values being imposed by school boards, as well as suppressing the values of the users, individuals or in groups.

In the article - “Systemwide, critics have raised questions about the ability of students, parents and others to speak publicly about the progress of school reform. The principal of Wilbur Cross High School disbanded a political club after its leader organized a rally for more textbooks. She then canceled a student election after he won it. Mayor John DeStefano subsequently defended the principal’s actions as proper and in line with his approach to school reform during this year’s mayoral campaign.”

Whether it is textbooks, or toilet paper or the active movement of parents forming within the school walls to advocate and educate others on a single issue, the education system rises up to defend their methods on the values - the meanings under the values, and never on the factual knowledge and the reality.

If anything, the educrats are a creative lot, when it comes to their explanations as well as changing the meanings of such words as transparency, to justified their actions. As in Orwell’s 1984, old-speak is not the ways of the school boards, but are banished, much like the reporter was dismissed outright by a school board official, preventing her from reporting the facts of a parent meeting, discussing the takeover of the school by a private company. However the official’s reason for banning the reporter is newspeak, turning a meeting from an official meeting to a non-official meeting, and therefore reporters are banned.

John, what the American educrats envy about the Canadian education system, is the control and power the the school board uses, to keep the press, and the public in the dark. Far too many examples of Canadian school board trustees and staff using their rules and regulations, to prevent freedom of expression, and to control the agenda of the school meetings.

The latest, is one of the Alberta school boards, looking to limit public input down to zero influence.

“The city’s public school board is considering sweeping changes to its meeting procedures that would abolish public input, eliminate individual trustee questions and maintain sole authority to broadcast proceedings.

The working group report prepared by a trio of trustees — chairwoman Pat Cochrane and representatives Pamela King and Joy Bowen-Eyre — says the aim is to make Calgary Board of Education meetings “more effective and efficient.”

None of the report’s authors responded to a Herald request on Monday for an interview.

However, two trustees who have frequently questioned CBE spending and administration plans say the changes would severely undermine board accountability and transparency.

“This report would take the public out of public education,” trustee Sheila Taylor said.

“It restricts the public’s voice, and it so limits a trustee’s ability to represent voters that I’m not sure I will be able to do my job properly.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+Board+Education+considers+changes+limit+public+input+meetings/5884607/story.html#ixzz1iVUNl7WR

However it is in keeping with the current beliefs and values held by the stakeholders within the public education system. The public is there to obey and remain passive, unless they are needed to become the cheerleaders of the agendas within the education system, to give voice to the unions and whatever the next fads are, and convince the others that the public education system knows what is best for the public.

Too bad the Canadian public education systems, do not take heed to the American one, on respecting the constitutional rights of individual citizens as well as the public having the right to know all information, and not the well-crafted messages made in advance, to block public participation, as well as allowing people to arrived at their own conclusions.

“Turn the Camera Off” is a phrase that captures attention. The New Haven Independent story, in question, actually focuses on the “school war” touched off by the New Haven City Mayor’s decision to privatize Roberto Clemente Academy and “clean house” with the teachers. School official Chris Hoffman was attempting to shield a private company ( Renaissance of NJ) in executing a “turnaround” operation. Incidently, reporter Melissa Bailey had written 8 or 10 investigative stories before this blow-up in December 2011. That explains Hoffman’s war weary look. He has since resigned and is leaving the board at the end of January.

Why delve into the background? The optics are terrible, but there’s much more to the story. It’s not really about school boards.There’s a “School War” going on in New Haven. Studying episodes like this,  I keep wondering if everyone has lost sight of students.

educhatter, your points are interesting, but do you have any sites where you can direct the readers of this blog?  I’d like to know more, from your point of view…
an addendum—the warfare which is going on in the States is because of the parental concern about the neglect of students…

the Educhatter summary is one with which I agree.

seems we ought to include
Media Literacy aka
News Literacy in the “basics”

America now has one of the developed world’s worst systems of economic mobility notwithstanding its self image. It spends incredible amounts on education but rich suburbs get it all due to local property taxes and inner city and rural poor areas get peanuts. As manufacturing is hollowed out, ALL Americans realize that without an education they and their children are doomed to lives of grinding poverty yet the powerful refuse to ADD funding needed or shift the funding needed to fix the problem. The POWERFUL offer the solution of privatization or nothing.

Under this panic, many opt for the lifeboat of privatization only to find that it does not offer any better results since the solution to poverty and concentrated poverty is less poverty and more bussing.

It is ironic indeed that those suburbs that proclaim “money and race and class make no difference it is individual effort that matters” are the same people that oppose bussing that would even out the class and race problems.

In other words only individual effort matters but don’t put MY kid in one of those blackboard jungles where they will flounder. Hmmm.

Here is Canada’s picture Doug, Ontario places second last, and closer to winning the race to the bottom.

“While the OECD study reaches only to 2008 � just as the recession kicked in around the globe � that kind of income inequality has been at the heart of the Occupy Wall Street protests across the U.S. and Canada.

The report found the gap between rich and poor in its member countries had reached the highest level in more than 30 years in 2008, with the average income of the richest 10 per cent now about nine times that of the poorest 10 per cent.

The aim of the study is to dispel the assumption that the benefits of economic growth trickle down automatically to those on the lower end of the earning spectrum, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said Monday.

“Greater inequality does not foster social mobility,” Gurria said in the release of the report”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/05/canada-income-inequality_n_1129337.html#s516716&title=PEI_The_Most

Doug, if the shoes were on your feet, you would not send your kids either across town, or a 20 km bus ride.

Individual effort increases in importance, when government policies and other external economic and social variables increases inequality among groups and individuals. Individual effort increases in importance, to protect and limit the negative impact of decreases in social mobility, and the goal of the individual, to increase social mobility.

Government policies and their ability to protect the legal rights and freedoms of their citizens, is based on the levels of protection that the government is willing to protect. Unfortunately, in the public education policies of Canada, the education policies are based on the lowest and minimum legal protection for the public they serve, placing the onus on the individuals to preserved their social mobility, as well as increasing protection against policies that works against their best interests.

As one goes up the income ladder,the better able the individual has to guard their best interests, as well as to protect their legal rights and freedoms, social mobility against government policies that is asking to give away some of their social mobility, as well as placing limits on their legal rights and freedoms, and transfer it to another individual or a group of people.

I only wish it was the big bad corporate guys, Turned your attention to the government policies of the day, especially the local policies that impacts people on a daily basis. Education and health are two such beasts, where health policies has a much higher level to protect citizens, compared to the education policies of minimum protection, offering opportunities to access education, a desk, a set of books/resources without the legal requirement of providing the tools and skills needed to access the education opportunities.

One of the reasons why the Moore case is sitting in the Supreme Court of Canada. The father of the Moore boy, had two options given to him by the public education authorities. The first option, to remain in the public education system, without the boy having remediation, since other like-students were not receiving remediation, and the second option, if he wanted remediation, to send the boy to a private school on his dime. The father chose the latter option, instead of the first option, a desk, a set of books and the opportunity to access education services, without the school providing the tools and the skills to take advantage of the education opportunities.

The social mobility of students within a school, is governed by the education policies, and their willingness to provide increase social mobility. As it currently stands, the willingness of the public education policies, is governed under income levels of the individuals, and their ability to provide education beyond what the education system does not provide or will not provide.

School boards, some of them do a far better job at increasing social mobility of their students, without imposing restrictions, such as attending school in a specific zone define on address. The above school board, decided to limit information to a select group of insiders, the parents, for the express purpose of control, which in effect impacted social mobility not only on the parents, but as well as the wider community, The local journalist swung into action, because on the many variables impacting social mobility, is the public’s right to know, as well as the public’s right to all of the information that the board has at their fingertips, regarding their actions and policies of the board. When education policies limits access and participation, it impacts social mobility of the public and users of the education system, as well as hurting the policy’s chances of being successful.

I agree with John Myers.  Mark Holmes should have been listened to WAY MORE when it comes to reforming Canada’s public education system. The chap was ahead of his time and he’s been proven right on more than a few things.

when did John Myers say that ,he said Mark didn`t like the Canadian stories being confused with the American stories???

first post Joanne

“...why use American stories and assume they apply to Canada?
In many cases they do not: a point one of your patrons, Mark Holmes, has noted.”