It is just a matter of time. When charters pay low wages while charter CEOs make over $200 000 and expect long hours from their staff, their teachers already turn over at an incredible rate, much faster than public schools. One of two things will start to happen, teachers will keep walking away or they will unionize.

It is easy to start with “thin contracts” they build up over many decades.

Did you read the link Doug? It was suggested in the conclusions, that charters may paved the way to rethinking the traditional union contracts found in public schools. Interesting that teachers in charter schools are more interested in having a say in the administration and operations of a school, than having tenure.

There is some advantages with a unionized charter school, compared to a public school union, The charter school contracts allows more autonomy for teachers compared to the public school teachers, allowing flexibility in looking after the needs of the student population, of whatever it is at the individual schools.

Something like the Alberta charter schools, where the schools have more autonomy and say in the individual schools, compared to the Alberta public schools, even though both are in the same union.

http://www.thenotebook.org/april-2009/091206/charter-executive-pay-how-much-too-much

Oh Doug,
Not all teachers, in spite of what you think, are in it for the money. Teachers will not necessarily “keep walking away” nor will they want to unionize.

In those situations where a Charter School CEO makes over $200 000 while teachers earn a pittance, it is the CEO whom the parents can choose to fire, or choose to reduce his earnings - because it is a CHARTER school, and NOT unionized. It would appear that he is NOT accountable and could (and should) be held to account.

We’re not, or should not be in it for the money. We should simply be paid our worth, and do our job, to EDUCATE children and have them literate and numerate.

Any chance common sense can prevail? Or must we legislate down to the paperclip and have a list of what can and cannot be done.

Education should not be summed up with “not buying milk because it was not on the shopping list.” Do you need it or not?

The parents have no say at all, they are corporate charter schools owened as chains across the country like McDonalds.

You are profoundly naive about money. Teachers should be paid exactly what other professions that take 5 years of post-secondary university require. Ten year teachers in Toronto make $96 000 and will go over 100K next contract. I consider them underpaid.

Who do you think is going to “rethink” contracts in PSs? The thin charter contracts exist because the schools are new.

Teachers are turning over at incredible rates in charter schools because the hours are long and the wages are low.

Autonomy does not by houses and groceries.

The more we pay teachers, the better people we attract to teaching.

Finland has the world’s best system because they demand 2 master’s degrees. This is the way we should be headed.

The same reason teachers leave charters is related to the reason that charter schools do not out-perform public schools. Far too many are dysfunctional.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/stuit_smith_ncspe.pdf

Another common stat that is missing from public view, is the rate of teachers leaving the public education system, within the first 5 year period, as well as other stats related to the education work force as to their mobility, within boards, between districts and across the provinces.

As for autonomy does not buy the grocer ices, so does that mean the students’ education, such as it is within the education system, is always at risk of being sold under the table, to serve the best interests of those who work within the system. If that is what Doug means, unions are against their individual members working for the best interests of the the individual students and their education needs. Is that why, it is so difficult for schools to remediate the garden variety type of reading, writing and numeracy deficits in a public school? Gotta wonder about it, when university professors are now teaching the basic arithmetic that should have been taught in grade school.

And public schools are not dysfunctional to the students and their needs?  Gotta wonder about the reasons why students’ education needs are delayed as long as possible, until the student is failing, and than something is done about it, along with 20 other students. I heard an earful from students today, pointing out some of the dysfunction in school, and rather ironic today, because I am reworking and rewriting the dysfunctional physics book. I thought those days were over, but I was apparently wrong. It sure looks like the educrats dealing with programming, has gotten their hands in physics curriculum, in the same way as their have their fingers in the math curriculum. Worse yet, the physics book, is on the Ontario Trillium list.

Teachers are going to need autonomy, in order to deal with the dysfunctional curriculum and instruction methods, that unions, according to Doug, does not take part in or have influence in.

So Doug, instead of talking about charter schools and their problems, talk about the current dysfunction in the public education system, that really do make teachers; work harder in so many different ways.

Here’s an interesting article from Minnesota Public Radio:  http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/12/02/teachers-union-charter-school/

It would appear that the Minnesota Federation of Teachers (a union) has won the right to ‘authorize’ charter schools.  What does that mean?  I quote, “Authorizers don’t run charters; they oversee the administrators and school boards that handle day-to-day operations of a charter school. Authorizers are also primary decision makers on which schools to sponsor.”  In other words - the union picks the management and tells them what to do.

Another quote addresses much of what has gone on this blog, “And we want to show that you can, in fact, have great schools and teachers can be in unions at the same time,” Nordgren said. “It’s really to dispel the myth that’s out there that the union is the problem when in fact the union can be one of the ways schools can get better.”

My, these are interesting times ...

Nancy did you read the study. The dysfunction of charters causes teachers to leave at a much faster rate.

Teachers need to be paid at a competitive professional rate in line with their education and years of service. Seventy % of board bills are teacher salaries but it has been the same for many decades.

Yes Nancy, due to the “accountability” demands of some, teachers are spending endless hours on useless paper work documenting every waking moment of their day. Naturally, all of this is subtracted from students including EC time. This is called “be careful what you wish for” or “The Law of unintended Consequences”

Yes Doug, subtracted the endless administration work, and add the instruction and curriculum, that promotes the greater inefficiency, where everyone is learning at one pace, and most are spinning their wheels going no where to fast. All compliments of curriculum written by teachers, with questionable background knowledge of subjects, but eager to make the front line teachers work very hard as well as being inefficient, to ensure pedagogical outcomes of low achievement, and in turn use the outcomes as the means to be bartered away in the contracts or included to serve the best interests of those who work within the system.

Successful schools systems (like Finland) do not allow streaming before age 16 because, everyone MUST learn at the standard pace otherwise they are “going nowhere at their own speed”. The less streaming (AKA tracking, the more successful the school system will be.

Doctors bargain for doctors. Does that mean that doctors do not care about patients? Patent nonsense. Somehow if teachers are well paid with good pensions and benefits that is bad for the kids? Total nonsense. The better remunerated teaching becomes, the better the results will be because better and better people will be attracted to teaching.

One hopes the people who enter the teaching profession aren’t as entirely driven by the bottom line as some here seem to imply.  In any event, given the hordes of people hoping to enter the profession, there’s not much evidence remuneration is an issue.

Doug, your favourite OECD, has stated, there is no relationship between well paid teachers with all the benefits and achievement results.

It has been replicated by others in the top levels of the global concerns, and you really should check out the TED videos. They can now go back 100 years in data, to show there is no relationship.

One hopes the people who enter the teaching profession aren’t as entirely driven by the bottom line as some here seem to imply.  In any event, given the hordes of people hoping to enter the profession, there’s not much evidence remuneration is an issue.

Posted by John L on 12/07 at 04:01 PM

This is not the priesthood with vows of poverty. Teachers today expect to make what other professionals who require a minimum of 5 years of post-seconary education also make. Teachers should be paid like dentists and pharmasists and a little more than engineers.

TDSB ten year teachers will make $100 000 after this next contract. This is slightly underpaid. Should be more like $120K.

The following book was written in 2001 making the case for the $100 000 teacher back when they maxed out at about $70K. We have had ten years of compounded inflation since then.

http://www.amazon.com/100-000-Teacher-Teachers-Declining/dp/1931868484#reader_1931868484

Somehow, when the educators speaks about what they should be paid, comparing to other professions, the one thing that is not brought up, is the higher accountability that other professions other than education has not only to the profession itself but as well as to the general public.

It is the sense of entitlement, that some within the education system has, high wages without being held to the same standards as other professions, or even to the lower standards of accountability within the legal law that is imposed onto the individual citizens. Yesterday, I learned that malpractice insurance for medical profession dealing with children as patients, covers the doctors up to the child turns 28 years old. Why 28 years old? Apparently, it is the age if any problems arising from medical procedures and care, the number of maximum years, a medical condition will surface resulting from health care as a child.

Their is not such thing for the educators, and those who work within the education system, who are never held accountable for their actions or inaction concerning the individual child that has been entrusted and enrolled in a public school, to the degree that a doctor has, an officer of the court, or the lowly engineer we entrust to ensure bridges that do not fall down, while we are going over them. Or even to ensure that schools are safe within the higher accountability threshold, like earthquake proof buildings, in regions that are known to be earth quake prone and lying on fault lines. BC, does not have a very good track record, whereas, NL has covered their bases on regions that are earth quake prone, the government buildings, all schools are earth quake proof.

The educators and their unions, would like to remain at the legal definition of the lower threshold of accountability ,  of the individual common citizen. As an individual, the lower threshold allows the common citizen to choose or not to choose, making decisions today and hoping the decision will be a good one for their best interests. The price paid for the common citizen, is that sometime in the future the citizen may or may not be held accountable for their actions or inactions of the past.

Once individual citizens, forms a collective group, giving them a single voice to give voice of the many, the group is no longer under the lower threshold of lower accountability, but the higher threshold of accountability, where the laws of the land demand accountability in exchange for services and payment is rendered.

The pay of educators is quite reasonable, since the unions, and the education system itself, are only willing to take on the lower threshold of accountability but are not willing to be held accountable at the higher threshold of accountability concerning students and the taxpayers. Their is an abundance of evidence within the public education system, that the school acts, regulations, and other laws that demands only the lower accountability threshold, when it comes to future liability of past and present actions or inactions of the collective group called a public education system.

What is the future liability, of the inactions of ignoring the early learning struggles of primary students?  What is the future liability of the public education system who does not provide timely interventions for students?  What is the future liability of not providing the correct discipline and consequences of a bullying student?  Many more examples, but my point is that the public education system, does not have to worry about their past, present actions or inactions, because they have a lower threshold of accountability, based on the common individual, and not as a group.

The lower the threshold of accountability for services rendered, the lower the salary demands are. To make demands of a $120,000 without providing timely and correct education services to meet the students present education needs to address their future as young adults, and as individuals, is akin to asking students, taxpayers and parents to born the costs of all future liability and be held responsible for all the actions and inactions of the individuals within the education system.

This is your highly subjective opinion Nancy. You ought to get a copy of the OCT magazine and check the discipline in there. You ought to actually aquaint yourself with the internal accountability mechanisms that nobody but educators see.

There seems to be a message from some parents in the Corporate Reform Movement that if their child struggled then the system is rotten to the core. People need to take a much broader view than their own child. Canada is #3 in the world of real nations (not city states). Doctors are highly accountable as well but they need insurance because doctors are found in malpractice every bit as often as teachers as well as lawyers as well as nurses.

The newspapers are FULL of mistakes by doctors, even the former chief forensic doctor. Every single day there are misdiagnosis, clamps left in patients, wrong limb amputated, botched plastic surgery, unnecessary surgery. Where did you ever get the notion that doctors are more accountable than teachers?

The nature of education is that it is very hard to pin the lack of a PhD on the student’s teacher in kindergarten just as it is difficult to blame the Leafs (grammar error) record on the goalie.

It would appear that you two are not the only ones to be debating whether teachers ought to be considered professionals.  Follow this link to this brief blog: http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2008/04/are-teachers-professionals.html

The author brings another interesting yardstick by which to measure the teaching profession.  Doug argues that teachers are to be considered on par with lawyers, doctors, pharmacists and so on.  ALL of those professions are SELF EMPLOYED - there is no one to tell them what to do - and they are accountable to NO ONE.

However, teachers must obey orders from their VP’s, principals, superintendents and other supervisory officers all the while following curriculum set by the Ministry of Education.  So, Nancy, who is more accountable?  I haven’t even got to the parents and public yet. 

Another thing you may want to note in that list, Nancy, is the absence of the UNION.  Follow the blog, the author doesn’t mention the word ‘union’ once.  I have never heard the union ever be in favour of the poor teaching methods cited on this blog.  Mind you (and Doug would probably agree) that the union could do more to promote better teaching practices than they have.  In fact, the unions have been virtually silent on many of these topics.

Not at all subjective, but framed within the legal context Doug, when it comes to accountability and responsibilities.

The public education system, is accountable to each other within the system, as individuals and as a group, but the lowest accountability is towards the students at the parents and the taxpayer in various levels within the lower threshold of accountability. Rarely in the education system, one will see accountability to the individual student and his learning needs. What is common, holding accountability to the collective groups and subgroups of students, as well as parents and the taxpayers. By using the collective whole, generalizing needs of the group, rather than the individual needs. the public education system downloads future liabilities and responsibilities unto the students, parents and the taxpayers, to lower the public education system’s accountability to the students. It gives way to blame, excuses and as in your last post indicates, a get out of accountability card, whenever the education system perceives a threat to their low threshold of accountability and low liability.

Education malpractice, is being heard at the Supreme Court of United States, simply because public education systems refuses to be held accountable at higher thresholds of accountability to their students and their education, and does everything in their power to maintain the lowest amount of accountability to their students as individuals, and slightly higher accountability to the collective student group.

In reality, there is no where in the acts, rules, regulations that states a public education system must be held account and be held account for the actions and inactions of a public education system, Ergo, the education system is not held accountability to the negative outcomes in the future, nor can they take credit fully for the future positive outcomes that results from receiving an education within the public education system, since they have opted for the lowest threshold of accountability towards their students.

Other professions maintained their high threshold of accountability by protecting themselves through
keeping up to date on the knowledge within their fields to their best ability, in all things that are the best interests of their clientèle, and in turn, the best interests of their livelihoods. The regulations and acts are imposed upon them, to ensure quality, high standards, and the lowering of future liability towards the clientèle either by an individual or the collective clientèle.

However, the public education system is a different kettle of fish, where the lowest accountability is imposed without the requirement of educators and others within the system, to keep up to date with the advances, new knowledge in the education field to addressed the individual’s student’s learning needs or the collective whole,

There is no need for a school, to keep up to date on the advances and knowledge in any aspect in the field of education, as well as other fields that have ramifications for students as individual learners. No need to, because the lowest accountability threshold has been met, and that is the offer of opportunities to have an education without the accountability measure in place of providing the tools and skills to access the opportunities.

In effect, even though it is highly value that educators and others within the education system, go and seek training and knowledge, it is not required for them to do so, in order to maintained their accountability or even to keep their job. The accountability has already been transferred to others outside of the education system, as well as the liability and costs of actions or inactions of the education systems.

What is left of accountability towards students, is based on the collective whole, and their needs have been generalized and reduce to commonly held universal beliefs, with or without the support to claimed that the universal beliefs are typical of student groups.

A big difference between internal accountability measures of teachers under the collective group label, and the much much lower accountability measures to address the needs of the collective group of students or the individual student.

Note the mention of the role of charter schools in this piece, and the place of Canada for tht matter.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/why-innovation-cant-fix-americas-classrooms/249524/

The union has a fairly substantial Education Services dept but yes I have always advocated that they do more. They CAN advocate but in the end, curriculum and preferred pedagogy is a management right.

Nancy,
Your sweeping and sometimes uninformed inside knowledge of how things actually work saps your cred.

Wayne, the collective whole within the public education system, have elected to exchange teaching services, by remaining accountable to their superiors, the regulatory regimen, without having accountability to the students that they serve. Not part of their job legally speaking, nor are they willing to take on the legal liability that other professions are willing to do.

In the comment section of Wayne’s link, “The essence of professionalism is first legal liability to meet a duty of care to a specific individual and second the autonomy necessary to exercise the judgment required to meet the duty to that person.

Public school teachers have no specific duty to their students beyond assuring their safety. They are not legally responsible for providing their students with what each needs to do and be able to do at their grade level. As others have pointed out, they have a very restricted range of discretion in what they can do for any student, and requirements to follow state, local and school policies that might even make it harder for a kid to learn.”
http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2008/04/are-teachers-professionals.html

I followed two more links, that the comments provided that is of interest.

“Are they to be independent professionals with great discretion and so a high level of personal accountability, or mere agents of the state acting under district direction? Are they to be seen by the law as more like lawyers or more like workers on the shop floor? Does the liability for poor student performance go to the teacher or to the school system? “
http://archive.edbizbuzz.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/12/3154238.html

Ever hear about a teacher being sued over poor student performance?  No, it is always the school, the board and the government that is sued, and not the individual teacher. Cannot hardly sue a teacher, for following orders and mandates issued from above, can we?  It is a trade off of teachers to protect themselves from liability, in exchange for education services and carrying out the say duties of the mandates of the upper levels. It is the board that takes the risk of future liability and not the individual teachers. That said, the reason why, year after year, there is always a certain percentage of students in any grade, who are passed along, ill-prepared to do the work of the grade with some ease and to overcome challenges, when the legal liability has a very low threshold, and is tolerated by the public and parents of the students. However, if a parent should object on the basis of the poor performance, and evidence the fault lies with the school, the future liability and accountability rises in each level above the classroom. It rises according to the actions or the inactions,and the clock starts ticking at the moment of the parent’s objection for future liability and being held to account. Asked yourself the question on what is the number of potential civil suits that could be initiated by parents, based on present and pass actions or inactions of a school, and school board within the legal context?  I don’t know the number, but I bet the lawyers at the school board knows the number really well, and most of the potential law suits would fall under duty of care, the legal definition. 

Duty of care under the professional umbrella, would include performance of students, and looking after the individual learning needs of students. But duty of care in the public education system, usually refers to the below link, that has nothing to do with the education needs of the students.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/teachers_and_schools/teachers_duty_of_care.html

Teachers’ unions and the contracts are actually trading off professionalism, autonomy, for protection from legal liability and low thresholds of accountability to the students they serve.

Ergo, professionalism cannot be associated with the level of pay, but to the legal liability and accountability measures of the profession in question.

The greatest fear of the institutionalized public education system, is the public taking avail of inserting their interest via through the application of law.

What would happen if parents follow the rule of law pertaining to the information of the students names, birth dates, and relevant health information that has a future impact on their education, and deny all other sources of information that is irrelevant to the education of the students. Information such as income, profession, working hours, divorce, single, married, and all of the other irrelevant information that the school claims is important to addressed the needs of the students and their safety. The public education system is mandated under law to take all students, but they cannot legally compelled parents into releasing information to school authorities, except for name, address, birth date and health insurance number

The public education system relies on their authority and consent, where silence of parents and students, are seen through the eyes of the legal system,, as a measure of consent and approval of any public education system. It is why disputes at the local school level, rarely goes above to the upper levels of the system, and within the school, the disputes are quickly squashed, or quietly resolved to protect the liability of the school board and the other parts of the education arms.

When disputes rise above the school level, they are resolved through the legal mechanisms, to protect the lower threshold of legal liability within the public education system, and download the burden of higher liability unto the parents who are disputing actions or inactions or a combination of the two.

That is if the parents are willing to follow the protocols and processes that were put in place by those who work within the public education system, and are designed to favour the workers within the education systems, and limits future liability and accountability towards the students.

If a parent has a dispute, or is dissatisfied with some aspect of their children’s education in the public education system, they could bypass the protocols and processes, by thanking the principal for their inactions or actions of the school, or for that matter the teacher, and than serve the school, school board, and the education department a notice in writing that the parents are removing their child or children from the school, until the matter is resolved to their satisfaction. What essentially is happening, is the parents are holding the public education to account, placing the education at a higher liability, and open to future liability under the legal laws of the land,  if the education system does not respond to the notice within 10 business days.

If parents did the legal route of notices,  on a regular basis, for bullying to education disputes to curriculum to instruction disputes, accountability and high standards would rise dealing with the individual students and the collective, being the students. The lower threshold of legal liability, would rise accordingly to the higher threshold of legal liability that is found in other professions that addresses their professionalism to the needs of their clients or patients.

The Supreme Court of Canada, is hearing the Moore case for good reason. The case boils down to the public education system retaining their lower accountability levels and lower threshold of liability to the individual students’ education needs. Does the public education system have the legal right, to present a desk, a set of books, a teacher without access and the means to the set of books, to access the opportunities that is in the set of books?  Does the education system, have the right to make decisions of an individual student, based on what the have and have-nots have within the sub-group of students?

I only harp on accountability, legal liability because the education system and its governance is set up for low accountability and the lower threshold of liability that work against the best interest of the students and their futures, long after the decisions have been made on the behalf of the students, giving the education system a free pass to avoid liability and to be held to account for their pass actions or inactions. If parents came accustom to wearing the two caps - the cap of the advocate for their children’s education and the cap of the legal knowledge pertaining to the public education system - that free pass would not exist for those who work within the education system,

Hard to make a case that anyone is asking teachers to take a “vow of poverty”; indeed the masses of folks hoping to enter the profession suggests that the remuneration is more than adequate to attract people.  It’ll be interesting to see the public reaction when the “sunshine list” skyrockets as scads of teachers hit the $100,000 threshold.

As to constantly comparing teacher salaries to other professions you’d have to take all sorts of factors into consideration.  Dentists and pharmacists have to attract and keep clients, whereas teachers are simply given their clients, for example.  In any event if some teachers believe they’re underpaid there’s nothing to prevent them from pursuing other careers, right?

As always there’s far more complexities to consider than some here can wrap their heads around.

The point is not just to attract enough warm bodies to teaching but as in Finland, to attract the very best so that candidates think, ” I was going to be a dentist/engineer/lawyer etc but the teachers pay benefits pension and working conditions are so attractive I better think again about teaching”.

Doug, is it all about the money and benefits?

Shouldn’t a vocation be mentioned, or a calling?

Just wondering, because in professions that requires specific training, and are highly specialized, the training dollars spent are wasted, if the new entry into a field, decides this profession is not what I thought it would be. Teaching would be such a field, where I would think one of the requirements is to like working with children. And these days, the love of teaching becomes sorely tested by the regulations, and all the rules catering to the private agendas within the education system.

I read a story today, written by a teacher and I wonder why the union brass is on the side lines, watching, remaining silent over regulations/rules that does indeed make a teacher’s job that much more difficult, and students that sooner or later, in their adulthood will learn some harsh lessons in the real work world.

http://www.care2.com/causes/when-schools-tolerate-violence-for-money.html

Teachers find it insulting that some especially conservative members of the community think that it is great to pay CEOs doctors, lawyers athletes, and other very high sometimes outlandish wages because “it is necessary to attract the best people to the job and retain them” but refuse to apply the same logic to teachers. Teachers again are not priests with vows of poverty.

Yes it should be a calling like medicine, law etc but we don’t hear calls for them to be paid low wages just because “it is a calling”.

Teachers need to be paid exactly the same as other professionals who require 5 years of university at a minimum to qualify, nothing less.

The unions do make a stink over idiotic rules some of which only affect teachers and some that affect students as well and have had some success over the giving of zero as a mark and disqualifying late assignments. In the end, however they cannot negotiate many of these things because they are “management rights”

The first line of almost every teacher contract stipulates, “every aspect not covered within this contract is the exclusive right of management”

To be frank, I have advocated that the union “do more and everything possible” in this area and have not been totally satisfied with my efforts.

As Malkin if she would like to see the union involved in more of what has been exclusive management rights over the years. I can predict the answer.

“As Malkin if she would like to see the union involved in more of what has been exclusive management rights over the years. I can predict the answer.”

Oh but they DO manage, they manage the “business” of unions…and not always very well:

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2011/10/28/did-nysut-prez-really-get-a-45000-raise/

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2011/08/15/weac-lays-off-42-employees/

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2011/08/01/cta-president-member-apathy-caused-by-budget-cuts/
http://www.eiaonline.com/archives/20111031.htm

I can predict Malkin’s answer too. She would choose a third way - namely, moving decision-making away from the remote union and school board bureaucracies where they currently sit, and instead moving the responsibility for many decisions closer to the action and delegating as much of it as possible to the stakeholders on the ground.

I don’t think Nancy was discussing internal union matters but when a state order mass layoffs of teachers who pay the dues then the union revenue obviously shrinks.

There are 2 solutions. OSSTF is now 30% non-teaching support staff. I have advocated for many years that OSSTF merge with ETFO and the new entity merge with OECTA. AEFO would be a difficult sell but every other province has only one teachers’ union in the public area. This structure was by statute in 1944 but a merger was allowed to create ETFO from FWTAO and OPSTF so permission would probably be granted by McGuinty.

Unions DO sometimes have internal management problems but they are rare. They are newsworthy because they are ironic.

No fair, you have an advantage.

Doug, the teachers unions are more known for their silence, than their advocacy for regulations/rules that endangers the education of students and their futures.

Years of silence concerning math curriculum. Years of silence concerning the 40 to 60 percent of students just barely on grade level in reading or below grade level at the end of grade 3.

And yet how can the union advocate on the above issues, when union members are hand picked for the committees and panels, to actively participate on curriculum, and other activities such as discipline policy? Hand picked to look after the union and their policies over the welfare of the students, and the teachers in the classroom. Teachers’ unions and the head brass always know the policies well ahead of the public, and the only responses are to defend or be used as a means of political gamesmanship,  if there is a backlash from the public. 

The new cheating policies of NL, the union brass knew about it over two years ago, and actually participate in the formation of the policy along with board staff. Why did they not inform the public two years ago? They waited, for the biggest bang politically speaking, and the right time, where all blame could be placed on the principal who came up with the idea, and he took all the heat.

Although I can see both sides the argument here, I think all of you are still missing some of the basic fundamentals of the issue.  To insert another yardstick here (ooppss - metre stick) - we also need to consider supply and demand.

One reason doctors, lawyers, etc are paid so highly is that there are so FEW of them.  A while back, Nancy commented on the fact that an MBA used to mean something.  Not so much now that there are tens of thousands of them.

Doug, I agree that one measure of salary level is to attempt to attract the ‘best of the best’ like Finland.  However, you know as well as I that it is not the case in Canada - and most likely never will be, no matter how high you raise the wages.  There are many skilled, well trained teachers who could easily get jobs in science, engineering, business and elsewhere.  However, there are at least an equal number that, although they have their Bachelor’s degree, have very few prospects of gainful employment - so they choose teaching.

We are still suffering from the Mike Harris ‘scare’ of a teacher shortage and his response by opening more spaces in teachers’ colleges.  We now have students in those institutions who received C’s and D’s in their final year of their undergraduate program.  We now have a serious oversupply of teachers - very difficult to justify a hike in wages.

However, because of that, we also have a unique opportunity to implement a system like Finland.  Here would be several steps I would recommend:

1) SEVERELY restrict the number of places/year in teachers college (like 10 to 20% of the current level).

2) Require ALL teacher candidates to have at least one or two UNIVERSITY credits in the ‘hard’ courses:  science, math and economics (maybe some could suggest other courses). - and by this, I mean two math, two science, and so on.

3) Require all teacher college applicants to have at least an A average in ALL their university courses (including the hard ones).

Do that, and you will have only ‘the best of the best’ and I doubt that you would get few arguments on pay from Nancy and the rest.  In fact, given the number of retirements, we would quickly face a real teacher shortage and wages would rise dramatically.

No disagreement on my part, but I would add, awesome training in the 3 Rs, based on the research that is not of whole language, especially in the grade schools, and high school teachers have solid training in writing, or at the very least know the difference between verb and an adverb, and raise the standards as to what is acceptable writing and what is not acceptable writing.

I get quite excited when my 16 year old comes home, telling me the latest on the going-ons in English class. Learning a bit of grammar, writing techniques of the kind that was taught to me in my day. and my 16 year old, is learning how to become a solid writer, and she is enjoying English for the first time. Not a single student in her class is making an A, not when there is so much to correct and stuff that was never taught. But the teacher knows her English, knows the strengths and weaknesses of each of her students, and is bound and determined that her students will walk out of high school, with the writing skills needed in this world. As the teacher told me, she doesn’t want to hear any of her students are taking remedial English in post secondary.

We need a few old-fashioned teachers, that were called battle axes in my day, that took no gruff from student or educrat. And this English teacher although young and pretty, is a true battle axe of the old battle axes of yore.

I am in a poetry feeling way tonight, and probably had too much sugar today. But Wayne, I like your plan even though it may cause a teacher shortage. However, a teacher shortage could be avoided, if the training of would be teachers started much earlier, in the primary grades, so 95 % of students would become proficient in reading, ditto for numeracy, and writing proficiency is a work in the making, as the teachers told my mother. And that day came, when I started to turned in A something essays, minus the grammar mistakes.

” ... if the training of would be teachers started much earlier, in the primary grades ...”

There you have said a mouthful Nancy.  You have exposed the soft underbelly of Doug’s continued comparison to Finland.  In Europe in general, the schools/streams that lead to university are much more rigorous than hours.  Prior to Grade 9, students typically take 10 different subject per year.  By secondary education, they will study 13 or 14 different subjects/year.

Our students, in comparison, take 8 subjects per year.  They must take 18 obligatory subjects.  However, in all of that: only one senior math, one or two senior science, and two senior English.  European students MUST take these courses EVERY year of secondary education:  math, physics, chemistry, biology, ‘literature’ (ie: native language), two or three foreign languages, business, history, geography, phys ed, art, ethics/religion.

By high school graduation, European students already have 2-3 TIMES MORE education in the STEM subjects than most of the graduates from teachers’ college in Ontario.  It is little wonder that an education system like Finland’s is so effective.  The difficulty with Doug’s contention that we simply ‘need to pay more’ to get a good teaching force is that it is way too naive.  By not changing the entrance requirements, we will attract more candidates of all abilities, not just ‘the best of the best’.

Doug also likes to play fast and loose with the facts as well. I like how he keeps hammering the old SES nail (‘SES is THE difference’ according to him), yet he conveniently forgets that Finland is a generally affluent country with little difference between the rich and the poor.  He also conveniently glosses over the fact that Finland is an extremely homogeneous country, with only something like 5.3% of the population not of the Swedish/Finish majority.

Students in Finland spend far fewer hours in class (600/yr)than Canada (900) and the USA( 1080) The teachers also teach far fewer hours. # of subjects hardly matters, it is the number of hours that matter. Want more subjects? Just cut 110 hours down to 55 and double the number of subjects.

There is no need for “hard STEM” subjects for those who major in English, languages, history etc. Finland sets aside a minimum of 15% of teachers college for science and 10% for math majors to make sure they have enough.

I have never forgotten that the Finnish SES (only 4% child poverty) is a major factor in their success in fact I am the one that constantly says that American SES is so polarized that there is little they can accomplish educationally until they close the gap.

The fact that Finland is a homogenous nation is neither here nor there, they consistently outperform other homogenous nations like Japan, Korea, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, etc etc. This is a red herring.

Finland outperforms everybody else for some well documented reasons now.

1) MA requirred to teach, most have 2. Science teachers in grade 5 have MSc for example.

2) No streaming before grade 10

3) Instruction is key, not assessment or testing

4) Free post secondary

5) Almost no SES difference between schools

6) No repeating grades or ability grouping

7) School autonomy

8) Teach less learn more

9) Very light homework. Work to be done at school

10) Almost no private schools

11) Immigrants score higher than all other nations.

12) Free nutritious food at school

I suggest people read “Finnish Lessons” Pasi Sahlberg

http://finnishlessons.com/

They also have religion classes Doug. Does that mean since Finland has religion, ditto for religion classes of the student choice. Cherry picking is reflective of the poorer achievement in Canada and United States, if that is how subject selection takes place. It appears to be like it, considering the less than brilliant subjects of choice on the Canadian education menu.

I have done quite a bit of reading on Europe’s education systems, and can confirmed all the facts that Wayne raised in his post. I can also state, in most European states, their form of charter schools, and other versions of vouchers are on the rise in all European states, including Finland. Not all is right in Europe.

I am sorry to say, the average European parent, with average incomes are demanding more quality education for their children. The same quality that can be had for children, whose parents are living in the high rent districts. Or do you think, that the local janitor lives next door to the well-paid teacher in Finland?  Children in Europe, depending on income and work, quality of education and much of what Doug speaks of, can be found in the high-rent districts, and not on the other side of the tracks, where even roads, public buildings are grimier than the high rent district, polished and glistening.

Another profitable business has sky rocketing in Europe, as it did in North America, is tutoring and all its versions. Doug, really should start reading the comments in WISE, to know what the average parent has to do at home so their child can achieve in math and hopefully for the sciences. Or look at the teachers comments, that are rather refreshing to look at from a parent’s perspective, that there is a light at this far end of the tunnel, concerning math curriculum and instruction.Even more illuminating is the comments from university students, and their not-so-stellar days in K to 12. Throughly pissed, that they did not get the math and sciences or the other kind, that is wondering if they have to do the same thing as their parents, tutor their children or pay for tutors for 4 to 5 years.

Since you raise the subject on nutritious food, I have to laugh at the numbers for the food program at the Toronto Board, to where the city is footing the bill in part. According to my figuring, $8.25 per student under 200,000 students ( I forgot the actual number), which is rather pricey for a whole grain bagel, an apple, a couple ounce of yogurt and 6 ounces of juice. I concluded, someone is making profit on the backs of children. Now compared to the new cafeteria operation in the local high school, by a big mega international company, for $8.25, each student would be well fed. For the morning break, a cheese and egg muffin (the kids say taste just like McDonalds), for lunch a pick of meals, which would include a drink and a dessert. And they probably would throw in a free bottle of water to boot.

And they certainly streamed Doug, and it comes after grade 6, and by senior high school, it is all streamed. In Canada, the process starts far earlier, done behind the scenes, by labeling and sorting of students by their SEC factors, Rather handy excuses, when parents come a calling with demands. Ditto for United States, who gets the door prize this week, compliments of the same type of Dewey-speak dogma of Doug’s, would like all children to received an education assessment by 30 months old. Yeah, lets start the labeling earlier and sorting much earlier, it makes for so much busy work and increases the bureaucracy and costs. Who cares how dumb the idea, when things can change a lot between the ages of 30 months old and the age of 5. My child would get the dumb label etch on her forehead, because she was not talking by an educrat with a teachers’ degree, unlike the health professionals, including the family doctor, who had confirmed with all their testing, a very bright girl, but why is she not talking?  Testing and observation that took place in different environments and over a period of 10 hours or so, compared to the bright idea of an education assessment at the age of 30 months, done in one environment, for a hour at the most, with a person armed with a teacher’s certificate, that knows better than anyone else, to pronounce the future needs of 5 year old children, at the age of 30 months. Even in Europe, they do not do this, knowing full well even the more well-to-do-parents will take their young children to the private establishments, beyond the reach of public education and their persistence of having authority and the know-how of the education needs of infants and throughout adulthood. No wonder charter schools, vouchers, tutors are growing in Europe, because people are fed up with a system that does not produced students with a well-rounded education, and the skills needed to navigate in this changing world of the 21st century.

Hard to know where to start Nancy with your stream of conscienceness.

Canada does better than every single country in Europe except Finland so we have nothing to learn from the others.

“Parents are demanding quality” of course they are but quality is not the same as the corporate reform movement.

“Other side of the tracks” Nancy? All kids do well in Finland. The SES of almost every school is the same. There is 4% child poverty nation wide. Not one school is over 10% child poverty, the critical point where the weight of poverty drags everyone down.

They stream by grade six? Who does, not Finland. No streaming before grade 10 where kids chose a university bound stream or a polytech bound stream. No ability grouping and no grade retention either.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/09/14mct_wifinland-teachers.h31.html?tkn=VZTF+J8sUD32rp/twZ2J8aplMZUBt/4xI32b&cmp=clp-edweek

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

Not according to the official definition of streaming. but the sorting and labeling starts after grade 6. Sorting out the better writers, math and so forth, and like here in North America, the low achievers are directed to the streaming levels that do not have a high academic demand, and not necessary for entry into university. None of the hidden streaming takes place in an open and transparent level, especially in NA. Just watch in Canada or United States, what occurs to the LD population, and it starts early in grade 6 or so for the LD students who are academically incline, to where there is constant pressure for LD students who are getting very good grades, to go for courses other than the math, english, or the sciences, that are advance or academic levels.

It is what the official policy of streaming or destreaming does not state, and what is more important is the actual practices, the unofficial practices composed of the beliefs, values of the individual staff, imposes on the official policies of streaming or destreaming. If anything, it is the unofficial practices that imposes the greatest influences on students and their pathways. After all, the unofficial practices has had a head start of six to seven years of undue influence, especially when income and other SEC factors comes into play.

Although, unofficial practices has never been studied to my knowledge, except in very small studies such as biases and beliefs of educators and their influence on academic achievement, The belief among the experts it does heavily influence achievement and future pathways of children, more so than parental influence.

The higher the income, the higher the ability and skills of parents, parents will seek out options for their children to address the weaknesses in their children. It has been noted, parents enter into other options other than what the public education systems of the world provides, becomes hot and heavy starting in the intermediate grades, prior to entry into high school. Is it a coincidence that starting in grade six or so, the pushed from the school staff, policies, as well as funding is redirected from remediation to having students accept their limitations, and go with their strengths? Now keep in mind, the limitations is concerning the weaknesses of the 3 Rs, the foundation that must be acquired to do advance work with some ease.

Kids do not choose on their own, in Finland or any other country for that matter to what courses and fields they like to study in high school. It is a combination of the unofficial policies of the education system and the strength of the parental belief and values held by the parents. In India, the low caste students certainly receives a double whammy, as well as the students who have migrant workers for parents. LD students also face an array of unofficial and official practices that blocks the remediation of their weaknesses, that makes it difficult to move from low achieving to high achieving. As for Finland, even though the wage gap is lower than in other countries, poverty although climbing to 7 %, the majority of students attending university and highly technical courses of studies are mostly composed of students whose parents are at the medium-high to high income groups. The average is at 75 %, leaving 25 percent of the low income groups at the university levels, and no such stats have been collected for the highly technical courses found at the college levels. Now, I wonder how many university students that are of low-income to low middle class are sitting in a seat at university in Canada?  It is not being tracked, but I have seen figures as low as 10 percent in many different articles, but Finland does a much better job at increasing the number of low-income students to university. However, according to the Finland’s media reports, the difficulties lies in keeping the students to finished their university degrees, because of high living costs, and other supplementary costs related to courses, that are not covered under the free tuition.

So Doug, is a public education in Canada governed by income levels, and types of white-collar vs blue collar jobs that parents processes that dictates the quality of education and resources being received in the schools?  In Finland, the schools with the most quality and resources, the parents are composed of the professionals, compared to the schools across the track composed mostly of blue-collared workers. The same can be observed across Europe , North America and in Asia, and the increasing number of charter schools, vouchers, and private tutoring, to respond to the quality of education being received.

Read carefully Nancy - No streaming “in Finland below grade 10” no ability grouping no grade repeating.

There are no “across the track” schools in Finland. 4% poverty rate and almost every school has the same SES composition. It is not just the national average that is good. Every school is very close to the national average. That is the beauty of the thing. They have come the closest in the world to totally mitigating SES as a factor but you must follow their “common curriculum” top level teachers, no private schools one size fits all model to be successful.

Nothing wrong with my reading skills, but read my lips - it is the unofficial policies and practices where streaming and destreaming occurs more often, than in the official policies and practices of the schools.

In Canada or even Finland, no matter what country sometime starting in grade 7, students are being streamed by ability through a combination of the unofficial practices and the official practices, and more so as one goes down the income range and the various job sectors. By grade 10, when students are streamed into the various courses, to what the administrators think they can do, and not necessarily based on their potential and ability.

Every year it happens around March or so, Canadian grade 10 students make their selection of courses, and every year students have their selections removed from the administrators, and in its replacement a course replacement either moving down from advance to the lower levels or moving it up to the higher levels. Happens with the academically inclined LD students, and the amazing part is as one goes up the income ladder, the higher number of LD students are in academic, but at the advance courses, there is a higher percentage of LD students in the highest income group in advance courses.

Until you travel that road Doug, the LD road - in a public education system that sees through the lens of SEC factors, rather than the abilities and potential of students and to remediate weaknesses of all students, and not just the students who are of the higher income groups and/or the right profession in the eyes of the public education system - you might come to the understanding why some LD students will received full remediation of their weaknesses in the 3 Rs, other a mix-bag of incomplete remediation and others who never received any remediation, and their education is guided by the labels that the education system is eager to plastered on their students early on starting in grade one or so.

If Finland has come the closest to mitigating SES factors, than why do they produced the same percentages as in other countries, when most students enter post-secondary education following closely to income groups. The higher the income group, the likelihood of entering university, compared to schools of lower income, whose students are likely to enter the lower fields, or go straight to work. Even in the former USSR, it ran the same patterns where a farmer’s kid was unlikely to attend post-secondary university, unless the kid had a special academic talent, and only if the farmer was a true communist, singing their tunes. Even in Cuba, going to post-secondary depends on parents singing the same song and dance of their governments. China and India, ditto and where China and India now holds the distinction in the world, where well to do parents of top achievers in the low 90s are not admitted in their universities, and the parents are paying for tuition in countries like Canada or United States, and the welcome mat is rolled out for these students. In United States, over 75 % of the PHD programs are comprised of India and other Asian students, and just around 25 % for the citizens of United States. This is especially so for the STEM programs in the United States. And this is on top of the high percentages found in the PHD programs that comes from the higher income groups.

Some have called it reversed discrimination, positive discrimination when trying to justified the stats and percentages. I simply call it, discrimination based on values held by others concerning SEC factors. A person in today’s society really doesn’t have an equal opportunity to advance themselves, when the education system is bedeviled with misconceptions, beliefs, and judgment of those who have the reins of policy formation and the ones who execute the policies.

Recently, a NDP MP came out of the closet, stating he has dyslexia, and that takes courage in Canada, where all types of disabilities, visible and invisible are filled with misconceptions and erroneous beliefs of what they can do or cannot do, starting the first day they enter the public education system.

Depending on where one is on the income ladder, the likelihood of looking through the lens of SEC factors is the typical solutions of the public education system, and not the hard work of suspending their values and beliefs to seek out solutions that is the best interests of the individual student, even when it goes against the best interests of the education system. Finland does a slightly better job, but in the end their policies still produce the same stats as in other countries, producing more equal opportunities for students, because they do a better job on addressing the individual student’s education needs than other country..

I have fought streaming and tracking all my life and yes Nancy, here in Canada there is a “hidden” streaming system in guidance offices and special ed offices. These people think they are doing the right thing for children “we hate to see them struggle” but sell kids short.

In Finland there is nowhere to stream kids to except special ed. There is no applied level, no elementary ability grouping and no grade retention. After grade 10 there is a very obvious 2 stream system and I’m sure somewhere some kids are pressured-encouraged-coached into the tech stream that could survive in the university stream but it is the lowest level of streaming you will find. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

http://www.ucc.org/justice/public-education/pdfs/NatlOTL.pdf

If Finland has come the closest to mitigating SES factors, than why do they produced the same percentages as in other countries, when most students enter post-secondary education following closely to income groups

Nancy, if you are waiting for a country where the poor outperform the rich, get a chair, it will be a long wait. If you are looking for the narrowest gaps Finland is the best, Canada is quite good.

http://dropoutnation.net/2011/12/13/what-if-its-not-about-poverty-the-maine-example/

There IS some truth to Doretta’s Main story above. After every PISA result is published, the OECD publishes a report on why some nations with “overall” wealth seem to do very badly on PISA-TIMMS etc. The USA is the classic but the UK is up there as well. The OECD points out that polarizations of poverty and wealth, compounded by “heavy concentrations of poverty” have a very negative effect on educational results. One of the only ways the American friends can keep track of which students and schools are poor is through the school lunch program oddly enough. Poor kids qualify for subsidized and someimes free lunch. Social scientists observe that when poor students concentrate themselves (which is almost always due to housing costs) in a limited number of schools it has a “double whammy” effect on the school. It seems a critical mass at about 20-25% of the school being poor begins a sharp downward cycle.

Yes, if the whole country was like Maine, there would still be a poverty and education problem but it would be much smaller. A critical mass of kids “doing badly, causing trouble, giving up, making achievement ‘uncool’, eventually takes a severe toll on a school and even more kids give up.

It is highly unlikely, due to economics, that black students about 10% of the USA can be spread over the nation evenly but the attempt to do it was what the ‘bussing’ wars were about in the 1970s. Then we have the Hispanic situation, another 12 % of the USA and also doing almost as badly. We must subtract from this the lack and Hispanic kids from more affluent backgrounds but that number, although growing is still quite small.

One of the beauties of Finland is that not only is only 4% of the child population poor but there are almost no concentrations of poverty big enough to have a negative affect on the local school. There is very little achievement differences between and among Finnish schools as compared to other nations.

Conclusion: the high concentration of poverty is almost as important as the poverty itself.

One thing wrong with your argument Doug, using relative poverty as the measure. The weakness is self evident, but become useless when comparing other countries, against other countries. Great for the politics and economic spin, but not so great for the realities.

“A measure of relative poverty defines “poverty” as being below some relative poverty threshold. For example, the statement that “households with an accumulated income less than 60% of the median equivalized household disposable income are living in poverty” uses a relative measure to define poverty. In this system, if everyone’s real income in an economy increases, but the income distribution stays the same, then the rate of relative poverty will also stay the same.

Relative poverty measurements can sometimes produce odd results, especially in small populations. For example, if the median household in a wealthy neighborhood earns US$1 million each year, then a family that earns US$100,000 would be considered poor on the relative poverty scale, even though such a family could meet all of its basic needs and much more. At the other end of the scale, if the median household in a very poor neighborhood earned only 50% of what it needs to buy food, then a person who earned the median income would not be considered poor on a relative poverty scale, even though the person is clearly poor on an absolute poverty scale.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

PISA, also do not have the stats concerning First Nations, and is another example where relative poverty measures would show few if any depending on reservation, are living below the poverty line. But the reality is, much different, especially in the North, where food prices are double and triple as to what it is in the South. Sure in the North, wages are a lot higher, but they spend a greater percentage of income towards the basics in food, shelter, heating, hydro, gasoline, and so forth.

As well , the number of students tested in Canada is around 42,000. A drop in the bucket, considering the spread of population, as well as the various economies across the regions of Canada, the various access to health and education services, and even the price of gas and heating fuel. Relative poverty looks real good from the top, but not so good at the bottom dealing with the realities.

In reality, Finland has a higher level of poverty, just like Canada has, but using relative poverty as the measure, is masking the real numbers of any developed country, and as well the high concentrations of cash poor to pay for the basic living expenses needed to live. But than again, those folks would not fall under relative poverty stats in Canada, nor in Finland, because they can afford the debt load, and the interests costs, compared to families living beneath the $35,000 poverty line cut-off, in Toronto. Another stat, is the percentage of individual citizens reporting their income at income tax time. Seventy-five percent of Canadians,  report gross income of $ 50,000 and below. which one can draw conclusions that the poverty levels are rising, nipping at the heels of households where a double income both grossing under $50,000 can have a comfortable life on the Atlantic coast, compare to ones that are living in pricey Toronto, paying for high shelter costs, and property taxes.

It all depends if one is viewing the numbers from the top or at the bottom. Numbers from the top, can hide and distort the true picture and realities at the bottom. Just remember that Doug, because you have taken advantage throughout your career to serve your own best interests, the fault lines of the public education system that are distorted and hidden from view, by looking from the top, and never from the bottom.

Nancy,

I think the university social scientists and experts at the OECD are well aware of what “poverty” is and how it is defined.

Your constant arguments against poverty being the defining issue in educational success flies in the face of overwhelming research. But then again you don’t trust experts. Sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-tQcD9v48&feature=related

Here is a “reformer with a brain” who understands that those rich white politicians who fight the poor at every turn on all other issues and then turn up with a solution for schools for the poor just are not credible. I certainly don’t agree with this fellow on all issues but he has some sense of the PR problem reformers have.

http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/12/reformageddon-reforms-rich-republican-job-loss-problem.html#more

Doug, it is the hypocrisy of the education system, its governance, and structures that prevents the activities of working to the best interests of the individual students and the collective, until the self-serving interests within the education system are fed their required doses to maintained their power and influence. Outside interests, including the taxpayer are a threat to the monopolistic public education system, and thus must have controls place on them.

Note you use the rich white politicians which is a given by those within the system, and such language inflames and repeats certain messages that filters down to the general public, to deflect and play the blame card and introduce ideology and dogma to replace the facts and the realities.

Also your arguments in stating that I would distrust the experts, is the tactic used by the believers of political and economic systems that the elite should be honoured and never questioned on their dogma, beliefs and expertise. In the education world, the so-called experts are the first ones to fast track their own children to private services at the first sign of difficulties in the foundations of the 3 Rs, if their children are attending a public school. And that is a big if, especially at the higher levels, because most of their children attend private schools.

The private tutoring sector is a growth industry, and shows no signs in flat lining in growth and profit. The public education system cannot hope to complete with them, until the education system is willing to change their instruction practices and in part the curriculum, as well as increasing the expected levels of improvements to fast and efficient. But that would be asking the impossible, when the public education structure is satisfied with the snail pace improvement in student’s achievement, and all too eager to put struggling students two years below grade level, and called it improvement.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/10/are_charters_the_silver_bullet.html

Theprimary reason for the mania over education is the realization that the days of having a well paid working class job in North America or Europe are over or at least in radical decline.

There has been an implicit deal in western capitalist nations that if you work hard and follow the rules you can buy a house and afford to send your kids to college. This deal is over.

No longer can young men count on following their dad to the auto plant and having a CAW job.

We are now entering an era when every family almost, expects to send their child to post secondary education but we ration these places to a limited number of people. This creates a rage in a huge section of the population with children who, for many reasons, are left out of the formula.

They want to blame someone other than themselves or their family or the class structure so they attempt to blame “the system”. It does not wash in the end because all of the contradictions become obvious.

http://educationviews.org/2011/12/16/charter-schools-enrolling-low-number-of-poor-students/

Why Charter schools and Corporate reform in general are not the right direction and why successful nations go in the opposite direction.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/why-innovation-cant-fix-americas-classrooms/249524/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2541051/florida-charter-schools-big-money.html#ixzz1gbdQuURP