Let me see:

Teachers pay 100% of the cost of the colleges through dues extracted from them against their will.

Teachers vote on which people represent them on the colleges.

The federations suggest who would be good members to elect.

90% of teachers voting vote for the teachers suggested by the federations.

The members in the majority, who get elected tend to be strong federationists.

The Boston Tea Paty fought over no taxation without representation.

The people running the operation don’t like being told what to do by the teachers reps.

Duh.

I see no one’s posted a response here yet.

It seems that the COT is starting a review of Spec. Ed. and Specialist Additional Qualifications course guidelines.

Is this another one of those calls for like-minded individuals and organizations getting public money to contribute to? (from the P4E discussion blog).

“The Ontario College of Teachers is commencing a review of Special Education and Specialist Additional Qualification course guidelines. These three-part specialist courses are intended to:

·      enhance professional practice, and extend knowledge and skills in the delivery of special education programs (Part I)

·      enhance professional practice, and extend and apply knowledge and skills in the design and delivery of special education programs (Part II)

·      enhance professional practice, and extend and apply knowledge and skills in the curriculum leadership of special education programs (Specialist).

Everyone is invited to share their thoughts regarding the review of the Special Education Part I, II and Specialist Additional Qualification course guidelines.

I have attached all the course guidelines and the feedback form. Send the feedback form to James Moloney .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) by December 1, 2010.”

Where are they attached, Chuck?  All I pulled up was James Moloney’s email.

Does that mean they learn more than to fill out forms?

A specialist in special ed-that is their education at the moment.Level 1 and Level 2-they tell me they learn nothing on how to remediate.

Not the teacher`s fault.

Bev - no attachment with my post just the notice for input from MOE that can be found at P4E or I’m guessing at COT (looks like that’s where it initiated).

While it’s not the fault of educators (agree there) I sure hope that COT and MOE will listen to the feedback from educators on this. 

One wonders if the request has even gone out to teachers. Why would P4E be advertising this?

Has SQE been sent the same invitation to farm out to its support base?

On the first news article, I found the comments of interest, and in particular one, that cause a stir.
“The COT does hold teachers accountable to the code of ethics or the stated standards of conduct. Only the very worst of behaviour is considered to be potentially misconduct, and even then the only consequences for the bad actors are whatever they consent to accept. Other professions in the province (take architects or engineers as examples) actually discipline members, and for conduct related to the profession, not just borderline criminal behaviour. It is absurd to consider that an architect is guilty of misconduct only in extreme cases such as if they sexually or physically assault their clients. But for teachers, this is the case. Bad actor teachers are protected by the COT, and the kids pay the price..”

Add to what Chuck provided on a review of special education and specialist additional Qualifications course guidelines - one will conclude that Jo-Anne is correct, more paperwork for the teachers.

Here is the link, after much searching for the review. All I can conclude is that the extra courses are to ensure that teachers are following the practices and edicts of the ministry and boards. Not a whole lot on the reality and the learning needs of the SE children. One should not hold hope, that even at the teachers’ college will put out courses that will at the end, help SE children to become good readers and writers. From what I have read, that is out, in favour of teaching children learning strategies, instead of solid instruction in reading and writing skills.

http://www.oct.ca/octsitesearch/default.aspx?searchstr=special+education+review

I am also inclined to agree that teachers’ colleges only hold teachers accountable to criminal behaviour, and not the lesser kind of offences that teachers may commit against their students, and to a lesser extent the parents rights. The next link is on professional misconduct.  http://www.oct.ca/investigations_hearings/regulation.aspx

I highly doubt a parent could get to first base, filing a complaint on a teacher, who is willfully ignoring the recommendations of an IEP, regarding instructional methods. It is not seen as professional misconduct by the teachers’ college. Yet in another professions, it is seen as misconduct at the very least. From what I have determine, the teachers are under a lot of stress, to follow and not to innovate, or have teaching methods that are vastly different from what is approved by the ministry. The teachers’ college in Ontario, and probably in other provinces, are used to enforce, rather than allowing the teachers’ college to developed good programs based on the research,  that will help teachers teach the students of the 21st century. 

I do not see this as being the teacher’s fault, but rather the design of the system, that leaves the teacher to become a handy scapegoat.

This comment from the BC article, is where I stand.
“50 or more years ago “harm” in a school setting may have been measured by bruises from physical force, for which today police intervention may be appropriate. But today “harm” in a classroom is also measured by things such as neglect of students with special needs and learning disabilities, verbal abuse, and inability or unwillingness to perform mandatory duties of the teacher such as IEP requirements (in some cases because the kids are labelled as “lazy”). Research shows clearly that vulnerable school children who experience harmful classroom practices disproportionately end up later in life unemployed, paid lower income, having higher substance abuse rates, and shorter life spans. There are many outstanding teachers (my kids have had them). Unfortunately there is a fraction of teachers who lack the empathy or maturity to perform their duties.  My children unfortunately experienced this as well. And I’ve heard countless stories of harmful practices in the classroom that undeniably conflict with the BC College of Teachers code of ethics. Physicians, teachers, student support workers, technology specialists, psychiatrists, and many parents have also shared such stories. The sad reality for school children in many BC schools is that it is difficult to find a minimum, acceptable standard of teacher conduct.”

Interesting Nancy. One must wonder how much “help” the COT is to individual teachers on the ground.

Perhaps educators here could give us an indication?

If the COT has essentially become another gathering of unions then it’s become something other than it was set up to be, hasn’t it? Just another long arm of union and another layered waste of money perhaps?

If it was intended to be “something else” why would they ask the teachers to pay for it? “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” The government should have set it up with tax money.

The teachers vote on who they want as their reps on the college. The federations put forward a list of candidates they feel are the best. It is a secret ballot. The teachers vote overwhelmingly for the federation list in a secret ballot vote.

The bureaucrats seem to be saying “we don’t want to be told what to do by the people who paid for the college and the people who voted for the board.” Who do they think they should be listening to?

If school board directors said “we don’t want to take direction from the elected trustees”
, how far would they get?

That is window dressing Doug. Let’s dress it up by allowing teachers to select who they want to be represented at the teachers’ college and make money while we at it. Just like school board trustees, where they are having less and less say what direction they can take in education. Besides Doug, what makes you think the directors of the school board takes directions from the trustees? Would it not be for the most part, trustees taking the directions of the directors of the school board?

At the teachers’ college site:

“Each school board is responsible for:

determining the number, size and location of its schools building and equipping its schools, developing education programs, managing funds
supervising school operations, hiring and helping teachers, approving textbooks making sure its schools follow the Ontario Education Act
a number of other responsibilities.”

And the trustees: “Each school board is governed by trustees, who are publicly elected for three year terms.

As members of the school board, trustees help decide school board policy and financial expenditures. They also make sure that schools have the curriculum materials, facilities and staff that they require.”

http://www.oct.ca/public/roles.aspx?lang=en-CA

I would say that school boards is just another gathering place for the unions, and the ministry of education to fight out their own wars, leaving the trustees holding the bag.  The trustees, is just another point where trustees are there to enforce government’s education policies, and the unions is the window dressing, to make it look legit and unions can take advantage, of having their members climb the ladder,  working for the board as their first jump off point.

Of course Doug, it makes sense to hire people who are teachers, and know more than the average person on education matters. It makes sense to elect teachers for the teachers’ college. However, it makes no sense, when they become mere enforcers of government policies and edicts, preventing any real school reform to take place, that is not pre-approved by the government.

New Education Minister in BC

Yes, the previous minister said she would make the Avison Report public.  The Investigation took a long time and was extended by an extra month, so we expect a pretty profound report with suggestions.

Today, a new Minister is in charge, someone with very good ministerial credentials.  By that I mean George Abbott has a Masters degree in Political Science, and has been Minister of three government Ministries.  He is no novice, and hopefully he knows how to handle his staff.

For the longest time I’ve felt the last Minister was deliberately being sabotaged by her advisers and staff, knowing that there is considerable carryover from previous administrations, some NDP hires, etc.

I have no idea how Mr. Abbot may treat any report on our flawed BC College of Teachers.  We’ll have to wait and see.

I do feel that Mr, Avison will produce a very influential report seeing that he strongly believes in the principles of a “civil society” and has good credentials and a good reputation.  He has also been a Deputy Minister of Education at one time.

Whatever emerges will do doubt apply to Ontario discussions on this topic.

It is a wide open election Nancy, the teachers vote in a secret ballot for whoever they want. The federations agree on a list. They tell the teachers who is on the list. The list candidates win by a mile.

You cannot ask them to pay the bill but have no say. They are already underrepresented on the board. Too many admin, private schools, etc.

oug, I would dare say a lot more than why you have described in your last post.

Here is a link, down near the bottom, third from the bottom - The handbook for 2010.
Interesting how it is set up.
http://www.oct.ca/octsitesearch/default.aspx?searchstr=Do the people on the council get a salary?

Teachers are not under represented. I would think there might be ideology arguments between the elected representatives and the appointees. Or like-minded thinking that meshes with current thinking of the college and ministry.

I counted 11 appointees to 24 elected teachers. 
http://www.oct.ca/council/members/?lang=en-CA

Just press the a(s), to see the qualifications of the appointees.

As for being wide open, it is tempered by some rules and regulations, to make it a very quiet affair and to prevent some of the things that do occurred from time to time in other elections.

There should be no appointees but I could live with one or two. They are not paying, the teachers are paying. Principal and supers? OK one eack to reflect their % of teachers but they need to pay.

Glad you think it is quite fair. I’m not sure Bev agrees.

Fair, only in the number of teachers Doug. By the way, if you actually went through the links that I provided, the elected are all certified teachers and all are teachers in good standing with the teachers’ colleges at the very least.

Why should the appointed ones need to pay. The majority were not teachers in the first place. The present make-up of the board is 11 appointed to 24 elected. The appointed ones only have about 31 % of the council, against the certified teachers of 69 %.  I still maintain, the unions at that level, are playing a lot of politics,  ensuring that their best interests are serve. The appointed ones, would be easy to turn, judging from their backgrounds. And no doubt, the teachers who are elected, go after them first, so they can maintained their advantage and to influence decisions that are being made at the teachers’ college level.

COT is one farce the public is not forced to pay for.

Easy

  Accordingto the VIP Academy folks membership in the COT is esential to being a good teacher.

I wonder if their teachers are in OSSTF and paid union scale…

Doug?