You’ve said it all, Doretta!

I have no reason to think the new report from the TDSB research department is “secret.”  The researchers have presented their data in-house but no written report has been completed yet AFAIK. This is pretty standard in academia, as well: researchers will present on their findings at conferences (for example) before their articles are completed, peer reviewed and published. Sometimes their data is incomplete at conference time.

Likely this report will be written up and made available in due course.

When people “outscore” expectations by income there is usually an obvious explanation for it. The elementary schools that surrounded Chinatown in downtown Toronto always punched just a little above their income level, not too much but a clear difference. The explanation was that these were “business people” very often starting over again in Canada. Not all of them of course but immigrants often appreciate things that other Canadians take for granted like free public education. Teachers in the schools reported a calm orderly atmosphere compared to other schools of similar income close by.

I stand corrected then—the TDSB “yet to be released” report.

The TDSB has had an open boundary policy since the 1970s.

Ya right, and the Toronto board actively encourages Rexdale parents to take advantage of it in such an open and transparent way.  LOL

In Edmonton parents are given a “passport” at the start of the school year.  The board is pro-active about school choice and gives them lots of—because the PROVINCE does.  Edmonton public schools have to act like they are not a monopoly.

You can’t call the TDSB policy one of “open boundaries.”  Students only have a “right” to attend within their geographical catchment area, and they have some limited options to attend elsewhere.

See the TDSB policy statement here:
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/ppf/uploads/files/live/98/177.pdf

I have been almost exclusively in high-needs schools, and even they have been usually closed to attendance outside the catchment area. Some years, due to enrolment fluctuation, the optional attendance has been “limited” which usually means only kids enrolled in daycare at the school or in the area can attend the school. I know we turn away many parents attempting to register their child.

Even in Rexdale and Jamestown and other low-income areas, many schools are closed to optional attendance.  So the “choice” is mostly a mirage.

From a totally functional point of view I don’t know how it could be more open. You need to grant the local kids a seat. After that many schools are full. I think it is as open as it could possibly be.

That’s not true.

From a practical point of view we could implement full choice for students 12 year old and older that is we could implement full choice for middle schools and high schools.

We should not required middle schools and high schoold to grant the local kids a seat. Let each student choose which school they want to attend and if there is more demand than places let the schools have admission tests.

This way a) we will have the beginning of a meritocracy in schools, b) we will begin to save at least some of the children from being dumbed down and c) we will have parents paying more attention to what their children actually learn - as opposed to what their are told their children learn - in elementary school.

Full choice for older children is currently done in other education systems so we know it can be done.

This full choice would be a much more equitable than the current situation with next to no choice because the school a student could attend would depend on the student’s performance and not on whether or not his parents are wealthy enough and savy enough to buy a house in the right neighbourhood.

You tell local parents they don’t have a guaranteed spot at the local school. I will just sit and watch the fur fly.

It does happen—fur flying I mean.

By reading you have shared blog post I assume that Force people to go to school based on where they live. Thanks  
childcare courses