I believe you are the Society for Quality Education-you already,and we already know what your mandate is.
I loved hearing mad teacher,it felt exhilarating because he`s reporting from the trenches-It would be terrific if anonymous teachers could report in.

I believe Doug represents our opposition,the majority of thought in school boards and the Ministry-we already know that-as you do-

It is painful, for me anyway, to be reminded of the monolithic force we have to fight to do better for kids-I already know it but his constant attachment to posting depresses me.

I believe his tone discourages and creates some of the postings we experience that resemble turf wars.

Because you know your mission,is it necessary?
Also,your daily themes must exhaust you.

What about a deep discussion twice a month on an area we could really get to the guts of and perhaps even build plans of attack?

I wish you good luck!

I would miss the comments; they are as valuable and thought-provoking as the actual posts.  but to sustain the dialog, this site also needs to be more welcoming to opposing views; i’m grateful that doug has a thick skin.

Your request was for your readers who don’t regularly comment, and as I do comment regularly, thought I didn’t qualify but I see another regular Jo-Anne Gross has weighed so I will also because I concur with her points.
To me, Doug represents the past, past mistakes, past explanation, past excuses, past political spin. If I wanted more of that I’d read his website - one trip there is enough for me to get where he’s coming from. It’s not the future I want for education in my country. 

I was aware of SQE for a while. Ditto what SQE stands for and that it’s one of the only safe havens for discussion around the move forward of school choice in Canada.

I think anyone who is here to continually thwart the choice effort or counter SQE’s positions only for the sake of posting without giving a care to who they offend, should simply not be permitted to post.

If we’re going to move education reform and choice forward this should be one of the vehicles to do that where teachers, parents and anyone else can come to contribute and not be judged or trivialized for their experiences.

I am not here for a Dale Carnegie course but for exactly the reasons Jo-Anne has outlined, to show you exactly what your opposition says and why as Paul Bennett says, it is so difficult to make progress. If you want a site where everyone agrees it is easy to accomplish, kick off everyone who disagrees.

Your site will very quickly be able to count the lost number of hits. I get 10-15000 hits per issue on my site for one reason, it is controversial by design. It is controvercy that drives readership. The Stephen Hurley types come hear to hear the lively debate not to see a few regulars post self congratulatory posts.

It is totally up to you but Star Wars without Darth Vader is hardly worth watching.

As Tom said my skin is very thick from 40 years of warfare in the trenches of the education debate. I am not here for converts. that is hardly the point.

I read the National Post, and Toronto Sun every day, not because I agree with them but as a foil to hone my argumentation. They give me great fodder.

perhaps dan’s observation goes to the purpose of this blog.  there is a role for a safe place to share expertise and best practices, but my perception is that this blog has a transformative mission.  it rolls up its sleeves and argues for hearts and minds.

without dissent, an argument becomes an echo chamber, you only need to visit it once.

It must be very frustrating for 10 to 15,000 thousand “hits” who can’t even make a comment on your site “Darth.”  I’m sure you realize much it it is spam trolling for an outlet.

SQE gets significantly many more hits than that.  Many, many more.

The purpose of this blog is not be be an outlet for you to “hone” your “argumentation”.  If you wanted that you would allow discussion on your own “blog”. We already KNOW what our opposition says all too well and it’s water off a duck’s back.

It becomes rather tiresome to hear the same arguments go ‘round and ‘round untill someone yells the F word (no, not the four letter one).  Frankly, the boredom of that is probably the biggest turnoff to some of our lurkers.  At least that’s what we hear off line.

I think Tom had the best comment so far—the purpose of the blog is to share expertise and best practices.  It’s what School For Thought has tried to do in our posts (with an occasional op-ed thrown in!). It’s what SQE does by providing our remedial resources for free.

Hi.  I have a thought to add to the discussion.  Doesn’t the issue centralize around what the SQE intended for creating the School for Thought blog in the first place?

1.  If the site is intended to be a brainstorming circle, aimed at finding ways to rectify public school problems then…

———————It doesn’t need entrenched dissent. 

2.  If the site is intended to be a centre for debate and a duelling ground for ideology then..

———————it needs some management. It needs a rule base by which all postings must adhere, lest it devolve into a flat-out argument… unless…

3.  ...the site IS intended to be a forum for argument, flag-waving and blunt, single-minded posturing, then….

———————just leave it be, because that is what it has become. 

For what it’s worth, my hope was that the site’s intent was more aligned with point 1 above.  If it is supposed to be a situation more akin to point 3 above, I won’t be seeing you much more. This type of argumentation is easy to find.  I could encounter it every day if I wanted to in staff rooms, at pro-d days, by talking to my principal, by talking to the district Director of Instruction etc.

This kind of oppositional ideology in education circles is common as dirt.  I have never once read an “oppositional” posting on this blog, that wasn’t an age-old, pre-thought thought, merely renewed for one more masquerade as Truth.

BTW,  Thanks Jo-Anne for your nice comments regarding my postings.  It is relieving for me to know that there are some thinking individuals out there in education.

I’m probably not one of the “silent” folks that you wanted to hear from, but I did want to say that I would miss the conversation. I understand, however, how one could become concerned about some of the tone here.

“The Stephen Hurley types come hear to hear the lively debate not to see a few regulars post self congratulatory posts.”

I didn’t know that I was a “type”, but I’ll accept that. But I will say that I don’t come as a bystander. I enjoy participating just as much as the next guy!

I especially enjoyed the days following the “warning” from Malkin.

DIFFERENT QUALITIES OF MIND AND HEART TO SAVE FREEDOM

When I consider the literature, books, articles, etc. of the past 40 years in education reform, little has changed that is substantive.  What has changed is that the status quo has become more entrenched than ever, mostly for vested interests.

It is only the dire economy that is now causing serious examination of how efficiencies can be effected in education.  But it’s not just bigger-bang-for-the-buck that’s needed.  Very different structures and mechanisms are needed.  Different mind-sets.  And a renewal of warmheartedness toward vulnerable children and for those who care for them.

In New Zealand a total transformation occurred when government did an audit and found 2/3 of the education dollar never reached the classroom.  In 1989 they abolished regional school boards and now there are 2460 local school boards, one for each school with a majority of parent members.  Their achievement scores equal Canada’s.

John Holt, a very gentle person but usually very deep in thought, feared fascism, the totalitarian kind of thinking in education where people think they know what’s best for children and society and feel imposition is the best approach.  This approach still prevails.

He enunciated his fears thus:

“Today freedom has different enemies.  It must be fought for in different ways. It will take very different qualities of mind and heart to save it.”

It is for these reasons I wish to add my ideas as to why this Blog, School for Thought, serves such a useful purpose.

1.  It does spend considerable concentration on the “different enemies” that are blocking needed reform. Sometimes a post from the hosts, sometimes a comment, brings forth more insight.  These illuminations help the search for ways and means.

2.  It is the debates, dialogues, protests and wishful thinking that help the process.  The clashes of ideas and values push the boundaries of possibilities.  Strongly entrenched beliefs are challenged — are they sincere or the product of deep conditioning?

3.  Evidence is brought forth — research, examples, links to articles that are meant to persuade. I will give an example of an extraordinary “Trojan Horse” finding as a result of some intense argumentation (not on this site).  Someone very pro-teacher-union provided this link to a Forbes article http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/28/why-i-support-the-teachers-unions/
95% was on loving teacher unions, but the last paragraph was a total surprise and a gem in the rough! 

“Even if you believe that public education itself is wrong and would prefer a voluntary education system, or a system of teacher/parent cooperatives, or an entirely private or voucher-based system, you still need teachers. In any of these systems teachers should still have the right to form a union, to bargain and negotiate for wages and working conditions, and to find voice and agency in the loud cacophony of common cause.”

What this tells me is that these alternative ideas are out there:  a)  that the very notion of public education might be wrong as a model; b) that a voluntary education system might be right; c) that teacher/parent cooperatives are a model; d) that an entirely private or; e) voucher-based system is believable.

These ideas, from my reformist point-of-view, are great starting points for discussion.  I would not have seen this opening for discussion if I had a closed mind to this person, rejected this article because of the title, (“Why I Support Teachers Unions) or had this dialoguer been deleted by the host of the site.

I sincerely hope SQE considers keeping the blog more or less as is, with moderation for profanity or other legitimate reasons.  I do feel it’s a great asset to the search for solutions to our problems in education today.

Like the last three posts. I would lean towards
Type 1
and the Hurley Variation

LEADERSHIP

To do it well is tough and messy.  And of course the dialogue- I REPEAT- the public
dialogue will have it’s challenges.

But without that dialogue you would become
an anemic self serving provincial organization that pruports to represent but
does not consult .... happily that *positon*  is taken by People for Education and I do not think that Annie Kidder will save you a seat at that silly table. 

This blog may have vitriol but at least it reflects real passion from real people.
But given that it is a reflection of your organization the passion needs to be reigned in when needed.

god speed good people!