I am sorry to see that Mr. Doug predictable dialog will no longer be with us.  Interestingly, if Doug actually uttered the last quotation it is a perfect punctuation mark as it reflects the intractable, divisiveness which unfortunately characterizes almost all union-other dialog. You are either with us or against us and there is no middle ground beyond whatever the monetary settlement ends up being…and by the way, we always win regardless. Clearly, in a union landscape, there is only one winner and you know who that will always be…and of course, everyone else is a loser.

In a world which increasingly has become shades of grey, the union would like to stay very much black hat and white hat.

In the beginning(mid 19th century to mid 20th century), this dialog made compelling sense but when it is trotted out to rationalize the downtrodden membership who will soon be earning six figures or better with virtually no accountability to parents, or students or anyone except their union…we have a problem Appollo 13 and that problem has little to do with the endlessly, tedious script which plays from the lips of our organized labour representatives.

Unfortunately, this problem will not be going away any time soon. The solution mechanics of dealing with the institutional morass are almost incomprehensible to the average person. Therein lies a goodly portion of the problem.

As long as unionized educators and their comrades, education administrators successfully keep evidenced based education methodologies at bay with mis-information and stonewalling, this story is set to go on for a long time. 

Perhaps what is needed is some kind of conference or forum which explores the middle ground including paths which unionized educators could be on which are reasonable compromises.  I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Perhaps someone has another view outside of firing all the teachers. 

Goodbye Mr. Doug. It was kind of interesting while it lasted. Have a pleasant summer vacation

“The fact that I win all of the arguments is disconcerting to those who are not prepared to engage in any dialogue.” - Interesting statement coming from an individual who blocked a good number of folk from dialogue in a Twitter feed some time back. Healthy and respectful debate is always good.  When the need to insult individuals starts to become a priority you need to get shut down.  It’s all in the delivery Doug and your method didn’t work very well in this forum.  This time Doug…..well let’s just say you lost.

What if Mr. Little were asked to edit such harshness out of his submissions?

Or is what some consider harsh attacks merely a form of tough love by Mr. Little?

Given the recent advertising campaigns by the government of Ontario and the Elementary School Teachers’ Federation, I do think the presence of a sort of continuously looping ticker representing the deeply politicized philosophy of the educational oligarchy, has value.

Such a service, provided free of charge, should help newcomers to the field, to understand why your sincere questions asked of your local principal or school trustee will not help you; also that the intractable mindset are impenetrable jargon are not meant to be rude or personal.

It is the bird-call of the True Believer.

Who now will represent that point of view here?

Surely with a fairly influential and free forum accessible to him, Mr. Little could, in the interests of his professional colleagues, moderate his alleged harshness?

Just the facts please, Mr. Little.

Mr. Doug did not win all his arguments. Here is an example of where Doug was soundly defeated in a debate through the comments section. Notice how Doug continued to jump around after he was proven wrong.

https://educhatter.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/teaching-elementary-math-why-is-teaching-the-basics-making-a-resurgence/

So SQE, when the oven gets hot, do you have to leave the kitchen? It seems that you are folding up like a cheap tent in censuring good old fashioned discussion. Doug has never bullied or castigated anyone, just merely presenting good qualitative views from the public school system perspective. BTW this is the framework of education in Canada for centuries now-always has, always will. Doug has even done due diligence in providing backup empirical and supportive information. If things get heated either walk away, tail between your legs, or provide rebuttal. In this 2-way approach, one has great point-counterpoint from postings.But, c’mon people,no one is out to maim or harm someone. It is merely cross-debate with no one out to effect societal change. Denying Doug or like-opinions from being involved in a forum of this sort is an act of cowardice, or in hockey parlance, “turtling”-sensitive and afraid of confrontation. So be it!

” BTW this is the framework of education in Canada for centuries “

At least as far back as Plato, no?

A little research on your part would demonstrate that public education in Ontario, as constituted, structured and supervised by Egerton Ryerson, was most unlike today’s Dewey-Rousseau-Kinsey-Planned Parenthood-Cultural Marxism Alliance.

(in the latter case, as Doug Little referred to them, “not Commonists”, over on the link provided above)

“with no one out to effect societal change”

On the contrary, at the root of this whole engagement is the question, as articulated by Lenin: “Who Whom?” Who will control whom? Who will parent the child? Who is competent or authorized to instil in children the values by which they will live.

Socialization is everything, when it comes to public education.

Everything.

That includes the socialization of parents to submit to the theories, jargon and administrative proclivities of the current regime.

Or as Mr. LIttle put it on these very pages, “non-professional educator parents”, be they math PhD’s or rocket scientists or brain surgeons, have no right to opinions on educational matters affecting their children—and if they did they were, ehh, blowing smoke…

Steve - it was just before Christmas I believe where Doug got involved in a twitter debate.  At the end of the day he blocked almost everyone in the conversation.  So much for “censuring good old fashioned discussion” as you just mentioned.  With Doug a “2 - way approach” is non-existent.  With me at least, he has been extremely insulting, has attempted to distort my messages/opinions by putting words in my mouth and absolutely refused to answer direct questions I put to him in order to even have the opportunity to “counterpoint” or “rebutt”, but that’s not really what he wanted.  He has insulted other individuals as well. As far as being “out to maim or harm someone” even I don’t feel that was his intent, but it was most certainly his intent to control, deflect and insult.  It’s all in the delivery Steve and quite often his delivery came with the utmost disrespect for others in this forum, and I don’t give a rats you know what if that came with “empirical and supportive information”.  Insulting parents for not being pro-union in a forum that is all about “choice” and then providing people in his community with exactly that is a little two-faced as well.  Besides - these forums are not supposed to be about confrontation.  And as far as an “act of cowardice” - well I like to think of it as act of keeping things respective as far as a healthy debate is concerned (healthy being the operative word here). It’s been requested….“don’t post just to upset others”.  A fair number of his posts were exactly that.

” Here is an example of where Doug was soundly defeated in a debate through the comments section.”

John’s link goes to a highly edifying discourse by several people, which were elicited by Doug Little’s responses.  Including some of the more active writers in these pages.

Save it, print it, show it to your friends. Great stuff.

“an act of cowardice, or in hockey parlance, “turtling”-sensitive and afraid of confrontation”

No coward would have allowed your (not entirely pointless)  offensive, untrue and absurd comment to stand.

For shame.

Steve, you ought at least to have provided your full name behind your opinion. You ought to realize the fact your voice has been heard loud and clear despite your anonymous accusation of cowardice, is silent testimony to the falsehood of your statement.

“A little research on your part would demonstrate that public education in Ontario, as constituted, structured and supervised by Egerton Ryerson, was most unlike today’s Dewey-Rousseau-Kinsey-Planned Parenthood-Cultural Marxism Alliance”....
Charles,you are absolutely right. In times of change, whether chronological ot zeitgeistic,various societal trends will inevitably permeate into modern educational milieus. In that Ryerson advocated free education, he also would certainly endorse the absorption and inclusion of the trends that you mentioned as to the rounding out of the students’ understanding of the world. Zealotry would be frowned upon. He would want that student to move with the times- a very flexible model-with the greatest of exposures and be open-minded without prejudices. One great virtue of public education. But,enough about that.
In any case, Doug may have gone over the top in claiming that various people of educational repute should have no say or constructive opinion as to the state of public education, or to their own childrens’ educational experiences. There are things to be mended in the public education system,and such a forum as this SQE blog allows for open opinion. This blog will certainly not be the ultimate “fix” or will have the exalted Holy solution that will be optimum. It does have great resources for elementary math and comprehension strategies. Doug may have been frustrated at explaining things from a union perspective or to the meritous state of our public education system that no one took heed to. Ask him! And, Charles,I stand by all of my comments. And BTW Charles,my surname is Church. I have on previous instances used my full name. I have 28 years of service in three school Boards in Ontario and have witnessed and been party to a conglomeration of bureaucracy and the respective academic missions of various schools. I teach P.E related courses and could have a Jr. Drama course thrust on me in 2015-16. Scary!
Finally, I am leaving things as is. No time or inclination to expound any further. Within the realms of good sportspersonship and respect, Doug Little-like comments are certainly welcome here.

Hi Steve.  It looks like there’s a job opening, are you able to represent the establishment line in Doug’s shoes?  As the admins here have made clear they felt he made a useful contribution to the discourse, and felt it was unfortunate to have to ban him due to the tenor of his remarks.  I, for one, am happy to engage in collegial discussion and would welcome you taking up the same mantle if you can maintain a good tone—and I’m happy to reciprocate.  I agree that all voices can and should be heard, and should be welcome insofar as it does not begin to shut down participation.

I do agree that it would be best to openly address your comments with your full name, as most do here.  It’s a simple act of good faith.  We are not anonymous trolls here, you can know who we are, and I, for one, am easy enough to track down.

I appreciate all your comments, Steve..  You put a voice to my thoughts when I couldn’t find the words. Thank you.

Doug’s post were very enlightening for me.

They were an example of the knowledge, professionalism, openess, clarity of thought of someone who has been a high school teacher for many years and then had leadership positions in the Ontario public school system.

Personally I would post them again and again and again where parents of children just entering the public system could read them.

I would post next to them Malkin’s or Michael Zgwastra edubabble dictionary.

Really, parents have no idea how much hypocrisy, lies and impervious incompetence is in the public system.

Rob and others…I am immensely “gobsmacked” and flattered at your accolades! But to be representative of the so-called establishment line, as Doug was, requires much more idle time that I can afford and certainly the wherewithal to do so.
I’m merely exposed to OSSTF District 12 issues as they come up at staff meetings or to any robocalls/townhalls that I receive at home.( I may start getting these in late August, in respect to new contract and any proposed Fall job-action!). To be readily counter-argumentative on a regular basis would require quick,finger-tip information relayed back or having the means to research on a regular basis.
However,as an issue arises and I am comfortable and factual in providing a properly supportive dispute, I will do so. Thank you for thinking of me and have a great SQE summer. And,as Spider Jones is quoted as saying,“Education is your liberation!”

I havent posted on this site for a very long while, and I stopped even reading it because of Doug’s presence actually. It is certainly not true that his so-called knowledge of education made him the victor of every debate.  I personally challenged Doug by name on 4 different occasions on this site back around 2010, and he did not even respond to my points -I assume that my fundamental argument was seen by him to be undeniable back then, as now; that Doug Little’s political philosophy is at its core against individual freedom. With this, he can not argue, and I am on the side of freedom, not totalitarianism. 
  His favoured method is called “bait and switch” and his statistical arguments are amost always demonstrably false. 
  This site’s admin are not practising Doug’s type of totalitarianism in banning him either- just as no person must endure an unwanted guest in one’s home, one doesn’t need to tolerate such a person here.  It is a matter of property.  In fact, the right to ban a person from one’s own forum is the very point; as Milton Friedman called it, Free to Choose.
Good riddance to a tiresome voice of anti-freedom.

Doug was an arrogant educrat who could be counted on to deliver the same message consistently so we knew we were on the right track when we disagreed with him.

He was a constant stimulant to respond to.

It’s hard to understand why teachers would be afraid to blog when he was slithering around the website. All they had to do was poke him with the truth.

I am sorry that you will not be posting Doug’s comments anymore. It was the main reason that I continued to read this forum. i would offer as a counterpoint to the SQE position that teachers in Singapore do not have a union, because they do not need one. Their teacher candidates are chosen from the top ten percent of the graduating class, mentored for years after graduation from their teacher training college, and guaranteed the same salary as their peers in private business and industry. They receive a great deal of respect from all members of society. Their students are at the top of the PISA rankings in math and science.
We have come a long way from the Romans who used slaves as teachers, but we are not at the level of the Singaporeans yet

Doug, you certainly didn’t win your argument with me. I proved you to be a two faced bender of the truth who made a habit of dropping false, unproven claims such as this ridiculous notion that the reason you are being banned is that you won all your arguments. Your bliss at being dropped speaks to your ignorance.

I am a little -just a little - sorry that we won’t hear further from Doug.  He repeatedly cast a light on the mindset of dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” educators.  Agreed: he went over the top on many occasions. 

But this sad thing puts me in mind of an interaction I once had with a close associate who was also an authentic red-necked right-winger:

“Frank, you mean to tell me you read The Economist?  Don’t you now that it’s a far-left rag?”

Two points about his query:

1.  He was uninformed.  The Economist is about as far right-wing as a respectable publication can be.

2.  His aghast tone of voice indicated clearly that no respectable small-c conservative should listen to a left-wing voice.  This is a truly frightening set of mind, indicating that no right-thinking conservative should listen to any left-wing opinion.  In other words, we should be willing to oppose ignorantly, without bothering to know what it is we are opposing.

Thankfully I haven’t encountered this among SQEers.

But where it exists, it is just as bad as any of Doug’s utterances to which we have taken exception.

Food for thought.

Another bit of such food, on a lighter note:  perhaps it was Will Rogers who said, I enjoyed every minute of my education, except the part I had to spend in school.

Cheers, and a merry midsummer to all.

Frank, Burlington. 

Hello group,

Have been reading the recent posts.

First, Frank Gue, you still kicking, alert and entertaining – good on you!

Banning of Doug is distressing to anyone who has been a sailor in a totalitarian sea, in my case communism. Weak leaders ban dissent as it challenges the the program.  Conflicting opinions make you sharp and effective- just ask any teacher . Doug was providing a service to this group and to this blog.  Shame that you did not recognize it.  You cannot have progressive dialogue without dissent.

Saul Alisky, I am certain salutes Doug.  I absolutely salute Mr. Little.  Thank you!

Thank goodness!

I’ll provide a little more blatant, redneck summary if I may be so obliged by SQE.

This guy, Doug Little, was an extreme teacher’s union, nut case, incessantly blathering the party line (possibly even paid to do so) and quoting irrelevant “facts” and nonsense.

He was a perfect example of the self-entitled idiots who currently run our education system. A legend in his own mind.

I will not shed a single tear.

Let’s go back to back to Karen’s post,  “when the need to insult individuals becomes a priority, you need to get shut down.”  After that, Doug is described as “an arrogant educrat”’, “slithering”, as having a “type of totalitarianism”, “blathering”,  a “nut case”, and a “self-entitled idiot(s)” and some other disrespectful innuendos. So how do I go about getting Ken and Tym, the biggest offenders, kicked off this site?

Christina is right. If I receive another complaint about Ken and Tym, I will bar them too. And I’m closing down comments on this thread. Who needs this stuff?

Malkin, let’s stick with the topic of “public education”, or what is concretely wrong with it - and we all know how broken our system is in Canada.  The proof is in the results, which are not at all encouraging.

I lived in Singapore for 10 years - it was the ideal place to raise kids.  It was refreshing to see kids who were disciplined, dressed in uniform, respectful of their teachers, looking like they really enjoyed attending school.
Focus was on academics and achieving good results.

School was always a safe and healthy place, where parental rights were respected - no social engineering, bullying, guns or high rate of teen std.  The results proved the government was doing a lot that was right for the student, in accordance with their parents’ wishes.
This is what is lacking here in Canada where the government does the bidding of unions and special interest groups with no input from parents.

You’re right, it’s time to end comments on this thread.