Thanks for the announcement and I completely agree with the need for conversation that will lead to less “polarization”. I know that folks are far flung, but I have a suggestion. I came to one of your events, but there weren’t many folks there, and I really didn’t get a chance to meet anyone that contributes here.

But I think that there is huge value in face-to-face opportunities.

How about an SQE pub night. I would drive a couple of hours to have the opportunity to carry on conversation about the issues raised here. Doesn’t have to be anything formal.

But I have learned in my many years of online life that face-to-face opportunities go along way to build relationship, which is the foundation of good learning.

I’ll buy the first round!

stephen

Stephen, will you play the piano? )

Have you considered Finland as the model of everything that works for excellence, and equity?

I live in a family of teachers, although I am not one. My wife, 2 of my kids, their respective significant others, and a number of inlaws all partake in what is often referred to as “the family business”. All recognize there are issues and problems with the current system. But to your point, the problem cannot be resolved unless we are willing to open our minds and be respectful to the ideas of others as we seek to make things better and prepare the next generation. The problem coming down the road that will slam into the education system is the huge provincil debt and the expanding cost of health care. HC will consume 40% of the budget this year and 70% in 10 years. Education will suffer. So the clock is ticking and only through meaningful dialogue and respectful discussion sans the union or management or bureaucratic mindset will allow us to move forward and make education a winning proposition.

Absolutely…I even take requests!

sharing a beer is always an excellent idea.  even if it just a diet coke. 

i’m willing to be a ‘designated driver’ from midtown toronto.

What an ingenious post!  Are you kidding us—or perhaps trying to spark a little critical thinking?

A little civility and respect for other viewpoints is what the doctor ordered for Canadian K-12 education.  So, I say it’s worth another try!

Fortress education is a peculiar beast and like the elephant in the Hindu fable always being circled by those blindmen (and women). The blindmen touch and feel the various parts , but tend to talk only to those in their particular tribe. It’s the echo chamber effect.

For every Stephen Hurley willing to “Teach Out Loud”, there are five that prefer to stay inside the cacoon. Such olive branches are far too rare. On the outside, there are too many content to simply throw stones.

We do need more “crossovers” and I applaud you efforts to bridge the divide. It sounds to me like you are saying we should set aside the barriers and put students first.

Great idea, Stephen

I have found that the blogosphere sometimes encourages the worse in human communication.

A great reminder, and one that I trust will be applied fairly.

Might I also add that a violating of the posting protocol also include political posturing and insults directed at or to one political side or another.

Stephen - we’re not all from Toronto

I was hoping something might be done about the blog. 

My wife and I read this blog quite a bit, and occasionally I contribute.  The reason I read here is because the ‘professional’ discussions at all of the schools where I (and my wife) have worked are confused, polarized, and devoid of hard data.  Every single teacher and administrator I have met have shown themselves to be unaware of giants like Seigfried Englemann or Diane McGuinness or even Rudolf Flesch.  Local individuals such as Roland Case, Faye Brownlie and Adreinne Gear are referred to as ‘gurus’, without any investigation into the data-driven effect of their theories.  Likewise, these teaching professionals, directors of instruction and administrators have no knowledge of the Best Evidence Encyclopedia nor Project Follow Through.  They state pre-thought thoughts and rely largely upon feelings-based opinions.

Conversely, I liked to come here and read because generally, the site featured discussion that was well informed, used evidence and was elevated above arguments and polemic rebuttals.

Here’s to getting back to discussions based on informed and intelligent discourse, rather than the ‘line in the sand’ type, blunt statements that some individuals cannot seem to avoid.

But look at all the good information that has come out of the raging debates. Reading some of the responses has reminded me of many things I can and will use from my spot for debating policy at the board table. The more they protest, the more the truth comes out. And we know that we have truth on our side. It has been proven again and again and again which is being so wonderfully and aptly displayed through these debates. I do know and appreciate where a moderator wants to tear one’s hair out, but don’t fret. This is all a good thing! Remember, “me thinks they doth protest too much.” And the truth shall set us free.

Hi All,

To bring Doug’s question forward from another thread:  no, I haven’t been ‘scared off’.  I ran into some connection problems over the holidays that took a week to get fixed.  Once out of the habit, I found it difficult to jump back in.  I’ve checked in from time to time, but haven’t had much time to be involved in the conversation.  I will be extremely busy for the next several months.

I wish all of you well and I applaud Malkin’s initiative - it would be good to have some constructive conversation.  I’ll continue to drop by to see how things are going.

sincerely,
Wayne

haha!  Stephen, if you play, I’ll sing—even though I haven’t been asked

perhaps a suggestion that can help improve discourse on this site:  the format of SQE’s blog requires participants to post immediately and furiously - a blog post fades away in a day or so, and no one would ever notice a comment added to a week-old post. 

other types of discussion boards allow threads to develop over longer periods, and show recent posts across the entire board.  that kind of discussion may allow a more reasoned and researched comments.  even more usefully, it allows comments to be searched and reviewed.

for example, consider the open-source http://www.phpbb.com .  that link is the discussion board for that piece of software, but you can see how the ‘upper’ topics are stable, and discussion threads form below them.  comments can reply to a specific post, or simply add to the bottom as SQE’s does.

I should have added a few words on how to access the phpBB discussion forums: - hold your cursor over the COMMUNITY menu item to see the top-level forums, and select one.  some of the choices drop directly into discussion threads, while other (such as ‘Modification Forums’) show a second level of forum hierarchy before listing the individual threads.  each thread is equivalent to the discussion that follows an SQE blog posting.

for SQE, the forums might have titles like ‘Charter Schools’, ‘Teacher Training’, and so on.  To mimic the current SQE functionality, a blog posting might automatically create a new thread in one of the forums.

One thing that drew me to this place is the move toward school choice, plus the fact that parents here prove to be just as savvy as many of the educators in discussion the opportunities and differences choice brings to parent and student satisfaction.

It always seemed odd to me that with SQE being one of the leading and pro-choice education blogs around, why those who come here to argue to the contrary, and sometimes with nothing positive to offer.

Similarly, I became concerned when the discussion moves so completely off choice and best practices because of petty disagreements.

In my own experience with schools and education in this province discussions go around and around and around in circles, through the spats and arguments but rarely do problems get solved.

On the contrary, we solicit/welcome/love arguments to the contrary regarding school choice and anything else promulgated on our blog. We know we don’t have a monopoly on truth, and the comments on our blog allow us to refine and sometimes even completely change our positions.

So far, however, no one has been able to convince us that school choice is not the way to go. 

But keep trying!!!!!

I can understand although not sympathize with those who want choice in order to have a religious education. In fact by far the greatest number of choice advocates are after religion.

When I look at Finland, Korea, Canada, Singapore, and the other great education jurisdictions of the world, I don’t see choice as a factor.

My POV since I put my only daughter in a regular PS and my wife put her 3 kids in regular PSs and all are professional people today is that there is no need whatsoever for choice to deliver quality but furthermore. we cannot reduce everything down to me, me me. We must think of the best way to do mass education for national development.

For the nations surging ahead, the PS system is the chosen instrument of national development.

I just don’t see “choice” as a factor in national educational development.

To follow-up on Malkin’s 5:26 pm post, for newer readers here’s an older blog posting from March 2010 explaining how SQE got to our position on choice—Why We Do What We Do

/index.php/blog/sqe-why-we-do-what-we-do/

and Why Our Critics Fight Us So Hard:
/index.php/blog/read/why-we-what-we-do-ii-why-our-critics-fight-us-so-hard/

Stephen Lewis once said in politics and government there are many questions, the economy, justice, the environment, health but there is only one answer - education - the answer to every human problem. (yes he did put ONE of his children in a private school.)

Steve Paikin had an intersting show on “specialty public schools” the panalists divided clearly on choice, based in the issue at the centre of politics.

Freedom vs equality. The choice advocates POV was that freedom (of school choice in this case) was so important that it trumped other priorities. The other side took the POV that equality was more important than freedom of choice and therefore trumped choice.

Annie Kidder made the point that studies show that choice increases the polarization of SES and increases inequality.

It depends on your priority. Progressives see education as the great leveller. Its prime purpose is to create an absolute minimum of equality of opportunity leading eventually to equality of outcome.

Those who advocate equality of outcome have never anticipated equality of outcome for every child but the goal is equality of outcome by SES, race, gender, etc.

At the root of the problem is that SQE people say freedom trumps equality and progressives say, no - equality trumps freedom.

Naturally people like me like to point to a certain northern European nation that proves “the more equality you provide, the better the academic results.”

Actually, Stephen Lewis put two of his children in a private school. And, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe Annie Kidder put both of her children in a specialized school. And all the time both Stephen Lewis and Annie Kidder continued to support policies that would make it harder for other people to do the same thing.

As Michelle Landsberg (Stephen Lewis’ wife) was quoted in Maclean’s, “It was against our principles to do it, but you do not sacrifice your kid to political principles.” Presumably, in her (and Annie Kidder’s) view, it’s okay to sacrifice other people’s kids to your political principles.

The bottom line? No one should have to sacrifice their kids.

Actually only Avi was in a private school, the other child was in a TDSB alternative school. Annie Kidders’s kids all go to public schools. RHSA is a public HS with an arts focus. It is not an alternative school.

That is correct, Rosedale Heights is not an “alternative” arts school but an “arts-focused” school.

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

“In 2005, Maclean’s Magazine named RHSA one of the best arts-focus high schools in Canada, as well as one of the three best special-focus schools in Canada.”

Profiled here;
http://ontario.compareschoolrankings.org/secondary/Rosedale_Heights_School_of_the_Arts/Toronto/Report_Card.aspx

Conversely,
Etobicoke School Of the Arts is an arts specialty high school in the same Toronto public school board that also decribes itself as “the oldest, free standing ‘arts-focused’ high school in Canada.”  They hold auditions.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etobicoke_School_of_the_Arts

School is profiled here:

http://ontario.compareschoolrankings.org/secondary/Etobicoke_School_of_the_Arts/Toronto/Report_Card.aspx

I heard Annie Kidder loud and clear last night as she referred to herself/ her kids being privileged and able to make specialized choices, but in the same breath thinks that those unprivileged should be happy with their neighbourhood school.

That’s why I call educational hypocrisy and coming as it did from person for education not the first time we’ve heard this.

Rosedale was described to me by a former student as being as close to a private school as you can get within the public system.

The breath of fresh air on that show last night was Mr. Spence who doesn’t make excuses and sees offering choice as being the not just fair but equal in the eyes of any family, no matter their neighbourhood of being free to exercise their choice.

Ms. Kidder’s message was couched in many words but she said very little new. 

The segment with the Minister of Education before the panel was very unconvincing as well.

SQE pub night! Woo hoo! Great idea…and take it from me, we teachers love to hoist a few!
It would give those an opportunity to back up their views without the protection and facade of verbal convolutions online. I can certainly think of some choice establishments that are within crawling distance of the Executive Directors’ and my homes here in Metro West!
And being that I will probably be a OTPP recipient before the decade is out, Stephen, with many shekels in my pocket, the subsequent round(s) may even be on me.  To the SQE blogmatrices, please keep the readership posted about this upcoming event!

I taught at RHSA for 10 years until I went to the provincial office of OSSTF. There were kids from all walks of life there including Regent Park, Canada’s largest public housing complex.

It is a PUBLIC school.

Chris Spence has the problems of a ‘liberal’ which means he believes in equality of opportunity. What Kidder is complaining about is the fact that she sites studies to show the more choice there is in a system, the more inequality there is in the system.

Chris Spence is highly motivated to give Black kids a better shot. The problem he either fails to understand or ignores for progressives is that choice policies can often make education better for a small group while at the same time making things worse for the much larger group.

We see the same process in poor black communities. A charter comes in. Highly motivated parents place their kids in for the lottery, some are selected, this removes the highly motivated from the struggling school down the street. The charter later pushes out the low performers and the misbehaving students who go back to the local struggling PS. We end up with a situation where 100 kids do better and 1000 kids do worse by following the choice priority instead of the equity priority.

This is why progressives favour policies that “lift all poor kids at the same time” not policies that select a few for improvement and toss the others behind.

This is why the priority of EQUITY must always trump the priority of CHOICE.

Sometimes choice can lead to equity. Many alternative schools in TDSB were established to encourage drop-out street kids to return to school. Here you can see choice contributes to equity.

Every alternative choice needs to be judged by the criteria, “will everybody be better off, not just the kids within the choice.”

Your opposition comes overwhelmingly from people who priorize equity over choice and only support choice when it moves the equity agenda forwards.

People need to see the big picture not the “what is good for my child” perspective.

I agree with Doug’s perspective on this in terms of when alternative schools can be a valuable asset in a district.

An elephant in the room when it comes to considering other programs for our children is the degree to which the program offers parents a way of getting their own children away from “those kids”. Alternative options like Extended French and French Immersion, for example, give the sense of a more elite, advantaged program within the boundaries of the publicly funded system.

I’m not saying that this is a universal motivation, but it has been voiced by some parents that I have spoken with about choice.

On another point, I recall reading a report out of Alberta last year reminding us that Charter Schools in that province had as one of their underlying purposes the vision of communicating with other “mainstream” schools about practice that could be introduced for all students, charter or not. The report did make the point that those lines of communication had not really been fully developed.

I think that alternatives that allow us to “walk around” some educational ideas with the idea that what is learned could be expanded to the largeer system is valid and desirable. Many will read “experimental” into that, and that’s not what I mean. Sometimes its desirable to step outside of the assumptions and strictures of school life as we know it to see if what we sense will work could actually work.

But, in the end, scalability and larger implementation needs to been one of the criteria used to assess these efforts.

Good conversation!

That there are elite schools within the TDSB, is nothing new. Parents know it, teachers know it too AND they know which kids to direct to those schools. 

Annie Kidder made a specialized choice for her own children because she’s privileged. I heard that also. She then wondered about the fairness of those others who aren’t able to make those choices.

This strikes me as someone who wants it all ways, fairness to all but her own children.

I agree that Director Spence is closer to our children’s education future than were the others on the panel.

See today’s School For Though post on The Agenda.

Mr.Hurley, have your children started elementary school yet? If yes, what program are they in?

My oldest son is in JK this year. I’m not sure what you mean by “program”. He is attending our local elementary school.