The debate over education is wrongly framed. The debate should not be over whether public vs alternatives is better than the other, it should be over the parent’s right to choose the appropriate path for their children without have to pay twice for the education. The false argument as to whether “Taxpayer Financed Education is the Cornerstone of Democracy” is laughable. Many of those graduating from high school do not understand the concept, let alone able to spell it without a spell checker. And this is what we get for our tax dollars?
The greatest thinkers and philosophers about democracy did not receive their education paid for by the public purse.
It it about time we call public education for what it is in our modern world - another union shop structured to segment the population and ensure a healthy retirement for those that can do little else.
As George Bernard Shaw said,” He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. “
Man and Superman (1903) “Maxims for Revolutionists”

He was a very successful playwright as well as an educator – he founded the London School of Economics – who received a private education - saw the pitfalls of “industrial style education”. He said of schools and teachers, “Schools and schoolmasters, as we have them today, are not popular as places of education and teachers, but rather prisons and turnkeys in which children are kept to prevent them disturbing and chaperoning their parents”. In listening to the 4 teachers that sit around my dinner table at night I see that little has changed.

To me little has changed since I was a high school student, and I would suggest that little is likely to change from within the current bureaucratic and political system which has no incentive to do so. The only way change can be made is to allow parents to vote with their dollars. Allow them to move their children to schools that they think best serve the needs of the child. Allow them to move their tax dollars by way of a voucher system.

The establishment will fight this tooth and nail. The reason for their resistance is clear. They have the most to lose which a change in the status quo. After all, it is hard to deliver quality education when you are concerned whether your investment in the Maple Leaf’s will deliver the expected 10% per annum.

Had no idea that Shaw was co-founder of the London School of Economics, but here is his Wikipedia bio, and somehow Shaw is very well suited for the post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw

And his Treatise on Parents and Children

http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/1101/

I bet Shaw would have a thing or two to say about the modern day education system.

Our public educational system a cornerstone of our democracy?  What a joke!  We the taxpayers have no power whatsoever.
Is Annie Kidder paid?  If not, what on earth is she doing this for?

Yes ...

... and in the early 1500’s when Simons Menno was alive, there were no automobiles, electricity, indoor plumbing or any of our modern conveniences.  That would be why his followers eschew those technologies today.  What seems to be proposed here is that our modern educational system is some form of pedagogical ‘Hochmut’.

While I can agree that our educational system is seriously lacking in standards - both in outcomes and behaviour - I can’t see that turning back the clock to an elitist system that only benefits the rich will improve the situation.  What most proponents of educational choice seem to want is a tax payer funded access to an elite private education for their children.  Sadly, no one will support the government buying a Mercedes for you, or a waterfront home in Oakville or sending your child to Upper Canada College.

What has the public education system brought us?  A democratization of opportunity to ‘live the American Dream’ for all citizens.  Don’t you find it odd that the leaders of our technological revolution were products of a public education system?

Over my time, I have seen many ‘reforms’ in our system come and go (a la whole language, multiple intelligences, differentiated instruction, yadda, yadda, yadda).  All of them required us to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ - all or nothing.  Much the same seems to be proposed here.

Well I guess a number of us have seen a lot of things change, one way or the other in the educational system over the past 50 years. I cannot say much of it has been for the good. However, free people in a free society should be allowed choice. It is as simple as that.

We should not allow the option of choice be confused as somehow being elitist. Those that wish or can afford to send their kids to UCC are already doing so.  What we are looking at is empowering what is left of the middle class to be able to seek a better solution than the last 50 years of failed ideas have given us.

And that is not being elitist. That is being prudent. A little competition is good for the system and certainly would go a long way to bring about better education rather than social engineering. In the long run an agenda set by unelected officials hiding behind a wall of secrecy is not good for a democracy. That is when you do get the views of the elite being pressed into the fabic of free people. Only when a system is free of this type of influence can the essence of a democracy be preserved. An education system that provides choice is one of the best checks and balance to ensure that people are capable of making an informed decision on matters, rather than holding only opinions that are politically correct and sanctioned by the government.

Well Wayne - Your comments - “What has the public education system brought us?  A democratization of opportunity to ‘live the American Dream’ for all citizens.  Don’t you find it odd that the leaders of our technological revolution were products of a public education system.”

Democratization of opportunity? Every time I hear the word opportunity in the public education system, I cringe waiting for the other shoe to drop, which it does eventually. Inequalities have widen, as the public education sector strives for more democratization of opportunities. Or in plainer words, inequalities increases as access to education increases. I cringe, because often access is a given which represents the opportunity, but to avail of the opportunity, the student must have the tools to take full advantage of the opportunity. The lack of tools represent the inequalities, along with the skills and abilities needed to access the opportunity.

To your last sentence - “Don’t you find it odd that the leaders of our technological revolution were products of a public education system.”

Bill Gates had the access - the opportunity and the tools needed to take full advantage of the opportunity. He also had parents that sent him off to tutors, and any other activities that the public school did not provide. Like other leaders of the technological revolution, the large majority of them may have a public education, but not the typical one that most middle-class to low income schools have. Where access (opportunity) has been narrowly defined around criteria needed to access the opportunity, and more importantly the students are heavily dependent on the public education system to provide the opportunities. Who controls the access? The public education system. How does the public education system controls access? Via through defined criteria and processes.

Choice is the only way out of it, to close the gap of inequality. I would have loved the opportunity to have choice years ago, when my youngest was struggling in learning. I wanted the academic gap to close quickly, but the school board and the school had other plans to widen the academic gap, placing my child at further risk to bad future outcomes.  Democratic?  Not in my eyes, for many reasons, but the most important reason is that the public education system has no incentive to do so.

Kidder uses many words but actually says very little. Always has, and likely will in this case too.

“Is Annie Kidder paid?”

Yes, she and her exec. receive a nice salary.

“I can’t see that turning back the clock to an elitist system that only benefits the rich will improve the situation.”

No turning back the clock as I see it Wayne. The elite within the public system have choices other parents do not, like choice of school within the system as Kidder has.

How is Kidder’s group financed? Is it another front paid for by the Ontario government? By the unions? I hardly think that it is through donations from families, although I could be wrong.
If it is like any other public policy debate, one side or the other is financing her in order to make her group appear to represent “what the majority of the public want” which in this case appears to be a singular factory/public schooling option. Nothing less than full disclosure in my view should be required.

Kidder and P4E remind me of the studio bands that Disney sets up to promote.

Kidder and P4E receive Foundation grant money from Atkinson, Caledon, Maytree, Laidlaw, Walter Duncan Foundations, along with government money, and through donations and their own fundraising event “Telling Tales out of School”.  Donations from a passing of the hat at teacher union events also took place at one time.

In an interview for the Caledon Institute’s newsletter

“The grant covers some of the organization’s direct costs and will pay a modest salary to steering committee members.”

So Kidder is not what she would appear to be. She is actually a paid lobbyist for the unions and the government. I imagine she gets more airtime from the media when their policy objectives coincide. I often wondered how she was able to achieve such prominence in the media? Now I know. She was on the Minister of Education’s and the various teachers unions speed dial when they required an “independent” third party opinion. Bernie Madoff would be proud of this scam.
Kidder as a spokesperson for the status quo has a vested interest then in ensuring the continuance of a sole public option and discouraging any charter or private sector school initiative. Hardly a disinterested party in these discussions.

>>That is being prudent. A little competition is good for the system and certainly would go a long way to bring about better education rather than social engineering.<<

Absolutely! I full heartedly agree with Bryan. A little competition would go a long way to change students’ attitudes and parents’ and teachers’ attitudes. Once achievement starts to matter, things will start changing.

Wayne, yes, perhaps we have a system that is more equal in outcomes than others. However this equality is achieved at the price of dumbing down the average and above average kids and that’s not only unfair to them but completely detrimental to our society as a whole.
The other very bad aspect of the system is that it creates individuals with a very low capacity to work hard - since they never have to do so -, self-inflated opinion about themselves and high, unrealistic expectations about what is “owed” to them.

I hope I am wrong, I really hope I’m wrong but generations of young people with low discipline, aggrandizing self-image and high expectations about the lifestyle that is owed to them in an environment of fierce globalized labour competition is not a recipe for social unrest and disaster I don’t know what is.
Not right now perhaps; Canada is in a bit better shape and quite a few young people still manage by living with their parents. Let’s give it another 5 to 10 years. I do hope I’m wrong but the signs are on the wall.

“She is actually a paid lobbyist”

no where is that indicated in my posts.

I did check on the P4E site, if Kidder is paid a salary. Yes, it does appeared to be a fact, and I think Bryan can be correct in seeing Kidder as a paid lobbyist, for everything on the public education system. P4E has a seat at the government table,  acting on the behalf of parents in Ontario.like other lobbyists acting on the behalf of their clients.

“Advocacy groups (also pressure groups, lobby groups and some interest groups and special interest groups) use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy; they have played and continue to play an important part in the development of political and social systems. Groups vary considerably in size, influence and motive; some have wide ranging long term social purposes, others are focused and are a response to an immediate issue or concern.

Motives for action may be based on a shared political, faith, moral or commercial position. Groups use varied methods to try to achieve their aims including lobbying, media campaigns, publicity stunts, polls, research and policy briefings. Some groups are supported by powerful business or political interests and exert considerable influence on the political process, others have few such resources.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_group

Nancy - I’ve known for many years that Kidder and her exec. are paid a salary. Others wise to how P4E was cobbled together do also. Nothing new there.

P4E is NOT a lobby group. Not registered as one and must be to be considered such.

Also, as they have charitable status the rules say that they can not lobby for or against any one government. Are they getting away with something that needs closer inspection? Many parents have thought so for years.

Conservative supportive groups and organizations had places at the government tables too when Harris was in power. I know because I was at that table with them.

Governments recognize “stakeholder” groups and it is they who get the invites to the policy development tables, or appointed to gov’t EPACs, organizations and even special taskforces.

It was actually the Conservative Education Minister Janet Ecker who gave Kidder and co. stakeholder status - before then they were not.

@Chuck…you did not say that she is a lobbyist. I did. The definition of a lobbyist is, “someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist’s employer.” Kidder fits the definition, as she is paid by the government and unions to support only the public option.  When she drops the funding from those groups, then she will no longer be a lobbyist. However, her position is still anti-democratic as is does not allow for a private or charter option.

This tactic of setting up a “straw man” organization is not new. Many governements do it in an attempt to give their postion the perception of broader support and diffuse critsm.

I am for a “private” or charter based on a voucher system and the breaking of the monopoly that, like our healthcare system, needs fixing. Where is the representative for this option?  I am sure that there are a significant number of parents that would like this option. But I do not see the government, let alone the unions, funding such an option. I do believe however, that such an option, would accomplish two things. One, it would increase the quality of education and it would increase the compensation that teachers receive. But neither of those appear to be in the interest of the statis system.

Perhaps so if lobbying as define through the laws and regulations of government. But there is many non-profits under charity status, that work actively lobbying the three levels of government in Canada.

“Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by various people or groups, from private-sector individuals or corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups). Lobbyists may be among a legislator’s constituents, meaning a voter or bloc of voters within his or her electoral district, or not; they may engage in lobbying as a business, or not. Professional lobbyists are people whose business is trying to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest who hires them. Individuals and nonprofit organizations can also lobby as an act of volunteering or as a small part of their normal job (for instance, a CEO meeting with a representative about a project important to his/her company, or an activist meeting with his/her legislator in an unpaid capacity). Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying that has become influential.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

The stakeholder groups that are invited to the government table, based their claim on to represent a sector of society. In the case of P4E, it is the parents of Ontario they represent, via through the parent councils. The P4E can be seen as a lobby group, since it is one of their mandates to ensure that parents have a voice at the table, as well as bringing up issues at the table to influence change such as school fees or small class sizes.

What irks me, is that P4E paid membership via through donations,  are the voices of the parent councils, and other big guns, with a small minority being individual parents. Unlike other stakeholders, such as the Autism or LD groups, where the majority of members are made up of the individuals rather than the sub-groups. As such P4E has greater influence than other stakeholders, and can lobbied more effectively to be heard, even though P4E does not truly represent the parents of the province. They represent the parent councils, and not the individual parents. Whether the parent councils truly represent the interests of parents at the individual schools, can be seen as some do not, to the other end where a parent council truly represents the interests of parents of a school and the rest in between the polar ends.

I still see P4E as a government approved lobbying group, since they have a direct line to the schools and the parent councils. Government approved, providing they do overstepped their bounds regarding issues that run countered to the government of the day.

Correction - Instead of ” providing they do overstepped their bounds “

Should say - providing they do not overstepped their bounds

@ Nancy… Your comment “government approved” says it all and is at the heart of the matter.
Well said.

“Perhaps so if lobbying as define through the laws and regulations of government. But there is many non-profits under charity status, that work actively lobbying the three levels of government in Canada.”

Would that include SQE?

Does SQE get government grants? Is SQE supported by the union?

Lobbying is not the problem. The problem is representing yourself as an independent group trying to protect the interests of the public, when in fact you are a paid participant by the government. It is dishonest and is purposely put in place to decieve the public into believing that there is wide public support for a postion when there is not. I do not have a probem with anyone being at the table so long as they state who they represent honestly and declare their souces of funding.
But back to the original point. The issue is should their be options other than those controlled or dictated by the government regarding the delivery of education? Should the government monopoly over education be ended. I obviously think so. We got sidetracked about Kidder only becuase she trys to present a face that says the public does not want anything but “public education” while in fact she is a third column for the unions and the government. Hardly an unbiased opinion in my book, and all the more reason for alternative delivery models, as it shows how easily the system is and continues to be manipulated by the government and those with a vested interest in ,maintaining the current model.

So, Annie Kidder is paid to produce sound bites for the teachers’ union/government propaganda machine, in order to prevent having a competitive public educational system:  all indirectly funded of course by taxpayers.  Aren’t we a free society! 
What’s the cycle again, bondage; spirit/courage; liberty/democracy; abundance; selfishness; and back to bondage.  hmmm.

SQE a lobbying group - not quite a lobbying group since they are among many organizations that do not have a voice at the education table - the government table. But they would dearly love to be at the table, influencing the education policies of the day. The LD and Autism groups, would dearly love to be at the table as well as other groups with issues of children and how education policy impacts children. P4E lobbies only in one direction, where her messages and lobbying syncs with the messages of the government and unions.

SQE and other groups such as the LD group, are kept out because their messages are not in sync with the government or unions. It is why the meeting between Cowley and Kidder will be a very interesting discussion. Where Kidder will be doing a lot of circular arguments, and if not using avoidance tactics on some of the serious systemic problems within the public education system.

Even if they kept on topic, democracy in the public education system is a minefield, that shows many of the systemic problems stems from the governance of the public education system, which in turn will make it very hard for Kidder to defend the status-quo of the public education system.

I do hope Cowley is not kind in the debate, because it is about time to hear the other side of a public education system, and the role that P4E has played to keep the other side silent.

Yes.  To boot our governments and psu’s don’t even generate any revenue; yet they want full control over how they will live off tax dollars which are generated by the private sector.
 
In the cycle from bondage to democracy, once people, during the time of abundance, learn that they can have a great share of the largess (public treasury) by voting the right people in, they become selfish, put in their political puppets, and democracy starts slipping away.  We are then back to bondage.  Historically, the average lifespan of a democracy is 200 years.

Where in this cycle are Canadians and Americans currently?

But Bev, the public education system will argued that they do produced revenue - future revenues. There is economic theory, as well as the stats showing how important an education system is for a nation, and their future workforce. However, beyond that point of the future work force, it fells flat regarding democracy, and the other stuff, because the modern day public education system is a model of putting people back in bondage, without knowing that they are truly in bondage.

The issue of revenue generation is separate from how education is delivered. But I guess if the psu’s claiming that had actually been educated in the non-government sanctioned system, they might have known that.

Yes, Nancy, but we know they’re not doing a good job.  The fact that they’re fighting competition makes it evident to me.  They don’t want to work hard educating our future workforce—they’d rather have things as easy as possible, plus get salaries and benefits they’d never qualify for if they were working in the private sector…

I have an opinion on all this,as well all do here.

I don`t believe it will change in our lifetime.
The poverty card or SES will always be their excuse for lack of success,the Unions who should care about the instruction quality and subsequent effectiveness of teachers should weave all that into their forays,after all the teachers AND kids should be protected,not just teachers.

School choice will always be a wild card for the candidate running just as it is for the U.S.and the Congressional,dysfunctional blockage.
Vouchers and school choice would be great but Canada has another problem,voter apathy and apathy in general because we think things are good enough.The media other than Fraser Institute certainly spins it positively in spite of some boards showing 60% failure.
Has anyone other than this gang ever looked at the funding source of Annie Kidder and her organization and watched the empty political rhetoric that comes from that source?
God,she even wins them over at LDAO meetings,where she really has zero to offer and coerces politically a message that they are being heard.
It`s a lot of smoke and mirrors but Mr.Cowley does a good job.
They will vehemently support the fact that accountability,vouchers and school choice is a joke,look at the U.S. etc…
Since Reading First was discarded because of political lobbying they really have not been doing anything that would improve scores and charter schools,I can understand the lack of results.
Real problems require real solutions,not political rhetoric.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-spellings/save-me-a-seat-by-the-fir_b_935121.html

Just some clarification.  SQE is NOT a lobby group. As a registered Canadian charity we are not permitted to lobby.  We do not accept government funding. Ever. Nor do we take money from unions, not that they would ever donate to us anyway! 

SQE advocates for effective teaching practice and parental school choice when the former is not available.

People for Education is also a registered charity. They have to follow the same rules we do, except
they can certainly accept funding from whomever they want.

Why not also tell them how SQE gets its funding and that you’re paid to do work on their behalf.  It doesn’t diminish any of SQE’s work at all but it plays honestly with your supporters.

Being influential to gov’t works all ways.

Our funding comes from private charitable foundations and individuals.  Privacy issues do not allow us to divulge individual donors names (unless they give us permssion), but our larger sponsors are noted on our home page, with their permission.  We don’t “work on their behalf” which I think is not how you meant it to sound, but they sponsor OUR work in order that we can continue to carry out our mission.

We also do not sell lists of our donors names as some charities do.  Our privacy policy can be found here.

others may not know…..thanks for the clarification.

I think it’s important that just because someone receives a salary for working for a charitable organization that it’s not twisted into something it isn’t.

SQE (and OQE before that) have never pretended to be something that they’re not.

“on their behalf” - by that I meant on SQE’s behalf and your
directors

The day of the event,I hope someone brings up the vehement opposition they have to honouring research,choosing instead to follow “certain highly opinionated” Canadian educators who have held and continue to hold the top positions.
This bothers parents-we need to follow empirical research,not go with gut instinct.
Someone has seen my comments on CEA-Ben Levin-How Do Children Learn to Read and the opposition to the empirical research is representative of what is being played out in schools.
My view of P4E is they just don`t hold a candle to SQE and Malkin Dare-Annie is at best a political figure,with Malkin,she really knows her stuff backwards and forwards.The difference between essence ,SQE ,and straight politics,P4E.

“My view of P4E is they just don`t hold a candle to SQE and Malkin Dare-Annie is at best a political figure,with Malkin,she really knows her stuff backwards and forwards.The difference between essence ,SQE ,and straight politics,P4E.”

P4E doesn’t even do politics that well if you ask me Joanne.

Malkin should do more face time and media work I think. Doretta does great work but maybe more bodies at the top of the organization doing media would showcase those folks behind the brilliance more?

I,m sure they do as much press as they can,just try to get press on anything but the status quo,not an easy feat.
The papers won`t touch it.
They seem to get some air time when contentious education issues come up-ever notice how RARE they are in Canada?

Yes, Joanne, good point about the RARITY of contentious education issues here in Canada.
I’ve heard many people from Europe complain about our media coverage here in Canada,.  They, for example, say that during a teachers’ strike, the media doesn’t give you the facts.  I’ve even heard it stated that we have some of the most censored or biased (maybe both) media coverage in the western hemisphere.  I’m stating what people who have lived in other countries notice about our coverage here…  I notice the same thing.  CBC’s radio programming is good, but their news coverage is left of centre.  Shame on them for spending our tax dollars and not giving us the unbiased facts. 
In my opinion the media is to blame for our problems in education—either by choice, or by pressure, and these kids coming up and entering the workforce will pay dearly for all of this.