I’ll wait for the movie.

What an insulting and totally unnecessary comment.

When you have nothing of value to add to the post Mr. Little, whoever it is you think you are in the mix of Ontario education, how about resist the urge to say nothing at all by saying nothing at all.

To Malkin’s effort I’d like to thank you for this because I’m pretty sure that there are many, many success stories that the experience of private and alternative choices that we’d be happy to hear about.

If Mr. Little is typical of what parents have endured in Ontario then I agree with some here in not giving this bird a soapbox any longer. Someone mentioned that he has his own website(I think it was John or Dave). Cut him loose to develop his own forum instead of freeloading on others.

This post just and his comment deserve a much harsher comment but I’ll not stoop to his level.

I thought the comment, Mr. Little, was funny, and quite harmless.

it’s nonsense and neither contributes or entertains. I guess after reading his jabs and twists I don’t find it funny in the least.

That is the basic defence of your posts Chuck. There is no need to contribute or entertain thus you and John and Mr Sheep have no need to actually contribute knowledge in any form. Comments are just fine remember?

No one’s breaking any rules…

“no need to contribute knowledge in any form”?

Given the number of times one of our more prolific commentators has been caught playing fast and loose with reality I’d say this is one of those “people in glass houses” things.  If the “knowledge” being contributed is false or misleading we’re better off without it.

On the issue of “Comments are just fine remember?” there’s a certain irony there.  There’s no provision whatsoever fior comments, or any other interaction, over at Doug’s site.  Fix the deficiency over there and report back.

In his own words on his own website he’s here to provoke.
Being in on the first post does exactly that whether it’s relative to the post or not.

Comments Doug or an obsession with always having to say “something” to keep up that provocative promise?

John L. - I hear ‘ya!

How many times do you want to plow the same field John. Business decision.

Provocation is the essence of education.

The student says “I think Tibet should be allowed to leave China. They have a different language and culture and religion.”

Teacher then says, “Oh so you think Quebec should leave Canada then, they have a different language and culture and religion.”

Provocation is at the core of education. Draw out the contradictions. Point them out.

Not a very good example to support your argument, Mr. Little.

Gee, I think it is a great example. Either both Tibet and Quebec should separate or neither should separate by the student’s logic. Let them pick it up there and argue.

Are you just being antagonistic, Mr. Little?  One has a choice, the other doesn’t.  As you teachers love to say, you can’t compare apples to oranges.

That presupposes that we have a high enough regard for you competence that we’ll accept your attempts to “point out” the “contradictions”.

You’re not a teacher lecturing a class of bored teenagers anymore, Doug, the teacher/student thing doesn’t work.

The problem here is that there are folks, academics and otherwise, who keep catching assertions of, ummm, dubious merit to hold much value in the contributions made.

Sorry!

Run your site as you choose, and we’ll judge your efforts as we choose.

I guess then John you will be able to name one.

Guess what, it educational political debate, some people say “the glass is half full.” others will say, “that is simply not true, the glass is half empty.”

It is a matter of interpretation. I have pointed out endlessly that Canada is recognized as having one of the world’s best school systems, probably second best but by some criteria, the best. This position so undermines the basic critique of many people here that their tendency is to yell “not true”. Nevertheless, the world looks at it as true.

You flunk Bev.

The student said, “Tibet ought to be able to leave”.

Whether they can leave on not has nothing to do with it.

Actually having the best system in the world, if true, would suggest it is quite well funded, not in need of a massive increase in spending.

Then you get into the debate, yet again, whether or not it is the best, or second best, system in the world.

This is all fodder for discussion at your site when you upgrade it.

Being the best is not nearly enough. We need to show that we have totally pulled away from Finland and Korea and all the other successful schools.

Have no fear about the cost John. It is actually cheaper to spend extra billions on education than it is not to spend it. The more we spend, the richer we all become, the more productive the economy is, creating a rising tide that lifts all boats. You will love it John.

Already covered

There’s no way of knowing what benefit accrues until you determine how well or on what it was spent.

There’s some evidence school boards don’t make best use of money already there.

Come back when you have something not already discussed, okay.

Dead wrong, Of course you can misspend in education like giving money to private schools or paying directors too much but the more you spend the better the system gets.

Watch the USA cut back now and fall even further in international rankings. Still they have money to sqander on NCLB Vouchers and Charters. What a total waste of money.

Or papering over excessive absenteeism or holding on to unused real estate or hiring more teachers to teach fewer kids or rewarding people to not use excessive sick days…

Be surer not to onfuse your opinions with real analysis.  As a consultant you sholuld be aware there’s a need to back up one’s ideas with real evidence.

Anyway, this is getting a little boring.

The parents want their schools kept open and we always support the parents right John? Absenteeism is an outgrowth of teacher bashing that started with Harris but is maintained by say - you. More teachers to teach fewer kids? There is a word for that. It is called progress, the more the better.

Excessive sick days? These were all negotiated by the boards.

I tell you what John, you campaign on slash and burn like the Tories always do, and the progressive community will campaign on more support for public education and nothing for private education and we will see who wins. As you probably understand, you don’t have a chance.

Mr. Little—the bellyaching!  It’s shocking to see adults act the way some teachers do. 
Reading your blogs only rids readers’ minds of any lingering doubt that Ontario desperately needs a voucher system.

I guarantee the education will be far down on the list of campaign planks next campaign. It’s just not important like it once was. Aging populations with no kids in school will want their money going to healthcare and the economy and to pay down the debt McGuinty’s mounted under his watch.

Tax and spend Liberals will be the target and the issue.

In my region with less than 27% of families with kids in public education, I say not one more dime to plump up the union base or to teachers unworthy of my money in a system that still falls short.

Our polling continues to show education running between 2-3 on the issue scale where it usually is behind only health. This has been the case for decades. Periodically the environment moves way up then back down.

If education is the issue, the gap between McGuinty and Hudak widens in McGuinty’s favour. People still remember the damage Harris/Eves did to the education system and don’t want a repeat of that chaos.

Chuch people just don’t think like you in either or terms. They want more money for both health and education and roads and the environment etc.

As I have said before, if you live in a conservative area Chuck it simply doesn’t matter how people around YOU feel. In our system only about 30 seats ever change hands so it matters what they think only.

“your” polling? You mean the kind of push-polling done that is unearned and runs counter to reality?

I’ll wait and see the movie.

On second thought I hate re-runs.

No, they are not push polls. The only group known to use push polls in Ontario were the Ontario PCs.

Push polls if they ever have a use it is during n election. We were shocked in OSSTF when we found out how profoundly unpopular John Tory’s policy to fund other religious schools was. We sensed it was low but when we saw that it was only 15% we wondered why a politician would enter a provincial election touting a policy that only 15% supported. When broken down by party it was even worse for the Tories. Something like 2% of Liberals, 1% of NDPers and 25% of PCs supported the policy which is why you saw people like Bill Murdoch disavow the policy when things started to go south.

In vernacular, Tory walked straight into the propeller blades on that one. Get your friends in FI or somewhere to fund a legitimate poll by a reputable company Mr Sheep and you will find out that policies like these are, as I saw, profoundly unpopular.

All parties take advantage of push-polls Doug. People here aren’t stupid. The federal Liberals have used them plenty since the arrival of Ignatieff. Hasn’t done them one bit of good.

When there are no issues it’s a push-poll designed to push forward a particular agenda or issue.

So-called push polls are known in the industry as not being cost effective unless used during an election to win a riding or small group of ridings.

“Would it effect whether you would vote for candidate Joe Blogs if you knew he cheated on his taxes?” kind of stuff.

Otherwise a waste of money.

“Our polling”?

We’ve covered this many times; unless we’re told who commissioned a poll and what the questions were there’s little value in quoting them.

A poll can be crafted to get whatever result the folks paying for it desires simply by how the questions are framed.

I guess the election results proved the polls were right. John Tory was crushed because he dared to suggest public money be given to religious schools.

Again

  Please pick one name and stick to it.

The Whole Language War at the Halifax Grammar School may not be “feature movie” material, but it certainly warrants more serious attention.

Most of the posted commentaries make no reference whatsoever to the episode and its lessons.  They are also very Ontario-centric, at least to me.

The Whole Language Controversy at Grammar reveals, in microcosm, why academic rigour and phonics trumped “play theory” in one Canadian independent school. That story was repeated over and over again in school after school throughout the 1980s and early 1990s until progressive methods were in full retreat. The WL ideology was largely discredited among classroom teachers and everyone began spouting about the merits of a “balanced” approach to reading instruction. The only real holdouts were OISE and the faculties of education where WL remained a virtual dogma.

The Organization for Quality Education, (now SQE) spearheaded by Aunt Malkin, played an instrumental role here in Canada. Surely this deserves some mention on the SQE blog!

educhatter “The only real holdouts were OISE and the faculties of education where WL remained a virtual dogma.”

Correction - OISE and the faculties of education ARE STILL championing the religion of “balanced” literacy which is essentially a re-gifted WL model.

I agree totally that SQE should be taking more credit for moving he monster even by inches. Every little bit counts and some championing of SQE (and the former OQE) and marketing right here would indeed be supported by most.

Isn’t the Edmonton school system much lauded by SQE?

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/pdfs/B7.pdf

I’m sure you agree Chuck/Sharron.

http://k12subjectguides.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_balanced_literacy