The games, yes the games. Have a few questions, although not surprising given the fast start up of the ELP.
1. No daycare, unless there is 13 enrolled.
“: School boards are only required to provide extended day programs if 13 parents request the program. There will be cases where there are insufficient numbers for either or both of the before- and after-school components of the extended day.”

2. It appears no part-timers for the daycare portion. Pity, there is a great need for part-time daycare of this nature. Not only for women who work part-time, but as well as the woman who stays at home.

3.  Q: How does the ELP’s play-based focus fit with the government’s focus on raising literacy and numeracy scores on EQAO tests? I have found that the Grade 1 teacher has expectations regarding the discrete skills my students should bring to Grade 1.

A: Through the ELP program, the Ministry of Education is respecting what the research says about the most developmentally-appropriate program for kindergarten-aged children.  Furthermore, the research on brain development and social and emotional development points to the importance of young children learning to self-regulate so they have control over their attention-span, their ability to focus, and their ability to get along with their peers.  Without this self-regulation children will not acquire the learning skills they need to be successful learners in Grade 1 and beyond.  An intentional play-based program builds higher level thinking skills in children and allows them to learn according to their developmental stage.

Not sure about this play-based program. What discret skills are they looking for?  As for self-regulation, what happens to the kids who have excellent self-regulation ?  Just my experience as a mother, over half of the children that I ever known, including my own, had excellent self-regulation out in public. If something happen in the day-care or nursery school or at school, they certainly showed their displeasure at home. My child is the angel at school and the upset child at home. It certainly does take a lot of talking, to convince teachers that the public persona of my child is one thing, and how she will hold things in, until she comes home. As far as I am concern, the study regarding self-regulation when it first came out, it hit the American LD sites. It was discussed hot and heavy and it was decided more or less, that self-regulation is a factor for learning, but the models of developing self-regulation are questionable. The next link is on the self-regulation study and the Vygotskian model. Not too crazy over it, since it is based on make-believe play. The example used, is one thing my child never like to do, and that is play house.  She loved to play hair dresser, truck driver, and build with blocks, sand, or construct. In fact, none of my kids like playing house at all.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Developing+self-regulation:+the+Vygotskian+view.-a0159921038

4. Q: How will the various special needs students be supported in the ELP discrete school?

A: The Ministry of Education acknowledges that this is an important area of concern, especially for children currently enrolled in child care programs, for example, who have access to community-based programs prior to school entry. The Ministry of Education is working with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to work towards an integration of services offered by both the school board and community agencies.

Good luck on that one. I highly doubt that the child development centres will go to the schools, to give the individual child therapy, and I highly doubt that the school would be willing to follow any specific therapy, especially if it is not in their union contract. At the school board level, there is a question of quality and experience, compared to what is found at the child development centres and other child health centres.

I think it speaks volumes that McGuinty set aside the best option for staffing, as proposed by Charles Pascal, in favour of something else, at a cost hundreds of millions higher than estimated

I suspect the fix was in long before Pascal’s conclusions as to the best model ever saw the light of day.

Now we see the teacher federations, folks Daltie never stands up to, trying to organize the non-teacher staff,  The taxpayers had better hold on to something as I’d imagine the cost of the ELP is going to skyrocket, above and beyond what it already has, very quickly.

The all-day kindergarten thing isn’t now, if it ever was, about doing the best thing for kids.

Hi Nancy;
Self regulation has long been on my mind and I was not aware that anyone studied it. After I pulled my youngest out of school, I tried hard to articulate to myself why I had done it and it came down to self regulation. He didn’t have much and the school environment was making it impossible for him to get more. Do you know any other studies/ sites about self regulation?
Thanks for you interesting post
Rachel

Self regulation has been around for a long time, under behavioural sciences. But due to the cognitive brain research of the last 15 years or so, there is great advances being made in self-regulation. It is far from having all questions being answered, but there is much more understanding of it. BUT, and it is a big but, the education system has jumped on the band wagon of self-regulation, where studies have shown only a very small improvement in addressing self-regulation in school-aged children. There is other factors that influences and impacts in big ways, the self-regulation.  You know the funny thing, a lot of the new self-regulation knowledge, is coming from the LD and ADHD studies. It is parents of these kids that want the kids to take courses that have been developed from the studies.

It is complicated but not difficult to understand. It is why I think, that the public education system, will screw this up in a big way. The tendency to use one-way approaches, mandated by the upper levels will not increase self-regulation in children, because they will not take into account all the factors influencing the individual child. What may work for one child, may not work or be effective in another child. Teachers, and ECEs will need a full background on self-regulation, not to mention the child and the home environment.

Here is the link from the Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning.
Self-regulated learning: a literature review
http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResRepIntros/ResRep33intro.htm

From GreatSchool, an article titled, Teaching Tykes self-control
“Want to learn more about your children? Then get out the marshmallows.

Here’s how it works: Tell them they can have one marshmallow now — or wait and have two in 15 minutes. According to the famous study first done by psychology professor Walter Mischel 40 years ago (click here for a recreation), children’s ability to wait (or not) says a lot about how well they’ll do in school, with friends, and with family. And, incredibly, waiting for that extra marshmallow can even predict their future success as adults — in work and relationships.”

http://www.greatschools.org/parenting/behavior-discipline/teaching-self-control-pre-K-through-kindergarten.gs?content=2441

The next link, is titled, “Teaching Self-Control Skills to Children Reduces Classroom Problems”
University of Rochester
“It is exciting that adult mentors, who are not mental health professionals, taught children a set of skills that significantly strengthened the children’s ability to function well in their classrooms and meet school expectations,” said Peter Wyman, Ph.D., lead author of the article and associate professor of Psychiatry at the Medical Center. “This study suggests that with appropriate guidance from a trained adult, young children are capable of learning a great deal about their emotions and skills for handling their emotions effectively and those skills can have direct, positive benefits for their functioning in school.”

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2777

I think the problem with the public education system, is taking bits and pieces of knowledge, and applying them within the schools. As it was stated in my last post, ” Furthermore, the research on brain development and social and emotional development points to the importance of young children learning to self-regulate so they have control over their attention-span, their ability to focus, and their ability to get along with their peers.  Without this self-regulation children will not acquire the learning skills they need to be successful learners in Grade 1 and beyond.  An intentional play-based program builds higher level thinking skills in children and allows them to learn according to their developmental stage.”

After reading all the above links, one may very well questioned the play-based model being used. It is a lot more complicated than what the Ontario ministry is portraying it.
”

Rachel, here’s a link about an effective self-regulation program. http://www.mscd.edu/extendedcampus/toolsofthemind/index.shtml

The certified JK-K teachers involved in the expansion of the ELP will either be ETFO, OECTA, or AEFO teachers depending on the rest of the school/board. The question is, which union will the ECE workers join. The choice will be theirs, voting board by board. Some may join CUPE, some may join OSSTF which organizes non-teachers, some may join other unions. Some teachers unions that have never sanctioned the organization of non-teachers and exist on statuatory members, are disgruntled by the fact that ECE workers may join OSSTF which offers them an entry point into elementary and catholic schools.

OSSTF already represents caretakers, secretaries, social workers, etc in public and catholic boards all over Ontario.

Pretty hard to see how a union built on secondary schools would have any particular benefit to people working in elementary schools, in the junior grades no less.

It’s be cool to see how people doing the same job, but in different unions come to a common set of salaries, work rules, etc.

The craziness is just starting, folks!

You need to keep up a little John. Having one union does not mean one contract. OSSTF represents caretakers, secretaries, psychologists, social workers, speech paths, some ECE already, university workers, and about 20 other job cats.

Many other unions are the same.

I did a tiny bit of research today.

1. I lay odds that the majority of ECE workers will join CUPE, over the teachers’ unions. They already represent ECE workers, and in my opinion may represent the best fit out of all the unions.

” CUPE Ontario will continue to support the Pascal vision for early learning and care, and will work with your government to find solutions that yield a quality program.  We represent nearly 230,000 members, many of whom are parents, who rely on quality, accessible child care in order to work, attend school and re-train for new economy jobs. CUPE also represents the majority of unionized early childhood educators (ECEs), early childhood assistants (ECAs) and educational assistants (EAs) in hundreds of school, municipal and community-based workplaces.”
http://www.cupe.on.ca/doc.php?document_id=1134&lang=en

Read the link above, it is an open letter to the Premier, on the ELP program and the problems that puts the program at risk. In my opinion CUPE does the better job in providing job protection than any other union.

As for OSSTF, I could not find anything related to ECE workers in plain sight, but that does not mean they are not working at it. However, by doing a search, I did find ECE workers, that are working at the schools, but under the label of education assistants.

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Searchresult?q=Early+Childhood+Educators&as_q=Early+Childhood+Educators

The above link, the first PDF file will be of interest.

As for the rest of the OSSTF site, if one did a quick review, one would begin to understand the problems coming from our schools. Support workers that belong to a teachers’ union, rather than an outside union, such as CUPE, may have greater conflicts in carrying out their job and duties.
An example would be a teacher assistant that is highly skilled in reading, and is unable to help his or her students, because it crosses over to a teacher responsibility. Could this be the reason why there is little to no reading specialists in our schools? 

I can see it happening with the ECE workers within the school. It is where the ECE worker may not be able to cross the line, when the issues are about education in the classroom, and not at all about the daycare. 

A prime example, and currently an issue, it the ignoring of recommendations on a psycho-educational assessments, that pertains to the education components of a child, that was assessed by an educational psychologist,  who belongs to a teachers’ union. One of the biggest problems, that the educational recommendations are not enforce because, it is not in the teachers’ contract. The school, can ignored the recommendations, such as using a Orton-Gillingham reading program, and put another in its replacement that is inferior, but it satisfies the teachers’ contract and satisfies the law, to where the chances of a law suit is very slim.

It is laughable, that a teachers’ union can include the educational support workers, and claim that they are working for both the teacher and support workers in their best interests. What often happens, is the child pays dearly for not receiving the proper educational supports. One just has to take a look at the autism children in our schools, and how they are treated, with parents fighting for education services,  Than take a look, at the LD kids, and how many are poor readers. 

Here are the links for the OSSTF site, that I found of interest.

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Staff

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Default.aspx?DN=f72cfe84-d0ba-4741-8b94-f3006d412365

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Default.aspx?DN=7e8a01d9-c7c6-45ec-9290-51154d0c85ff

It is not about the kids at all. Not at all.

I put money on the unions getting into a pissing match over this and making it another one of their circuses.

Attended a social event yesterday where there were 5 elementary teachers from various parts of the province.

All of them were hugely critical of the ELP and spoke of how it poses a problem AND how out of the 5 only one teacher shared that it’s being implemented at her school.

The price tag will eventually sink this program into another one of McGuinty’s unkept promises. It’s not a matter of “if” it’s when. We’re already hearing from boards that can’t afford it, or don’t want to be in the daycare business.

As RetDir suggested on another blog, when boards finally realize what this all costs this program will do a slow fade and serve only a minority of parents.

It’s the wrong program for a time when there are simply fewer children.

The CUPE union, is concerned as well.

“•Increasingly, school boards, who are unable to operate with deficit budgets, are expressing concerns about inadequate resources to implement the first phase of ELP.  Boards have indicated that the current resources do not provide adequate funding to provide the full program.

•The extended-day provisions of the ELP, an integral component to the program’s success, are being challenged by some school boards who are setting high user fees for care for a program that is intended to be cost-recovery based.  The provision of extended year early learning and care, including program delivery for March Break, professional development days, and summer, has not been offered by any board. To date, we have not seen a school board publicly commit to a program consistent with the full vision of early learning and care as set out in either the Pascal Report or Bill 242.

•Workers in the child care sector, and new early childhood educators (ECEs) in the education sector, are being placed in untenable situations where they are forced to make major career choices without the benefit of a clear picture of what the government intends as the ultimate delivery model for early learning in Ontario.”

http://www.cupe.on.ca/doc.php?document_id=1134&lang=en

Meanwhile, the teachers’ unions are more concern with who does what, when and where. As for the individual teachers, most are probably wary of the ELP program. I can see pictures of ECE workers getting into heated discussions with the teachers, on issues related to the education of the individual child. The ECE worker, sees the whole child, whereas the teacher sees only the part of the child, and only in the sense of educational needs.

Pretty hard to see how a union built on secondary schools would have any particular benefit to people working in elementary schools, in the junior grades no less.

OSSTF has been the bargaining unit for some child support workers in TDSB elementary schools for at least15 years, perhaps longer. I believe most CYW’s (Child and Youth workers) who support children with social-emotional and behavioural needs in primary,junior and intermediate grades are members of OSSTF. They were in my last school. However I don’t know if OSSTF represents all CYW’s in the TDSB.

Nancy’s observations on how things are done in NFLD don’t apply to Ontario. For example:

highly doubt that the child development centres will go to the schools, to give the individual child therapy, and I highly doubt that the school would be willing to follow any specific therapy

These professionals from various agencies and child development specialties already go into the schools to give individual children therapies (speech, occupational therapy, vision support, ASL training, supports for children with autism, CP, medical problems), mostly through a provincial government subsidiary, the Community Care Access Centres.  These therapists and specialists work with teachers and support staff to continue and support the child’s therapy insofar as this is practical in a school setting. It’s not a perfect world, but many children get a great deal of support in school, through co-ordination with medical, social service and other agencies.

currently an issue, it the ignoring of recommendations on a psycho-educational assessments, that pertains to the education components of a child, that was assessed by an educational psychologist,  who belongs to a teachers’ union. One of the biggest problems, that the educational recommendations are not enforce because, it is not in the teachers’ contract. The school, can ignored the recommendations, such as using a Orton-Gillingham reading program, and put another in its replacement that is inferior, but it satisfies the teachers’ contract and satisfies the law, to where the chances of a law suit is very slim.

In Ontario, those who perform psychoeducational assessments are members of the College of Psychologists of Ontario and not members of teacher federations.  Many, though not all, are very knowledgeable about instructional practices and can make specific recommendations about how to assist students with various learning needs.  However, their recommendations are suggestions, they have no “legal” weight and are meant to help parents and teachers support the child.  The assessments *never* recommend particular programs, whether Orton-Gillingham or anything else (although a specialist like a SLP or psychologist might make such a recommendation in conversation).

The psychologist’s recommendations are among the factors used in developing an IEP for the student (a process in which the parent is encouraged to be active), but these instructional decisions are not influenced by the “teachers’ contract” and they do not, as they do in the USA, lend themselves to legal action. IEP processes and special education procedures in Ontario are not actionable in a court of law, although there are procedures parents can go through if they are not satisfied with their child’s program. They can appeal the various Special Education placements through a local process, up to and including a Special Education Tribunal, and they can (if they feel they have cause) launch a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (but not over instructional variables—rather, over things like unjust disciplinary action or racial discrimination).

IEPs are to contain a statement of the student’s strengths and needs, long-term and short-term goals, strategies and assessment practices, but they are not supposed to spell out specific instructional materials or programs.  A parent’s best bet is to frame the goals and strategies in such a way that only effective materials will adequately address the targeted skills and goals.

TDSBNW - The points made are valid, and the same points used against parents who is trying to get educational services for their special-needs children.

My experience is related directly to the Ontario system, and what happen in JK and SK relating to my child. The speech pathologist wanted to go in and view my child in the JK setting, and see what was happening. At that time she was not receiving speech therapy, but the observation session was to gain information, as to see how well she was doing, from a professional viewpoint. Well, the paper work involved, to allow him the opportunity to observed her in the setting of the classroom, was a bureaucratic nightmare.  It was not denied, but rather the speech pathologist decided it was too much trouble and a waste of his time to wade through the paperwork. Thus, since the speech pathologist was often puzzled about my child’s delay in speech, he decided to make sure that my child remained classified as special needs, up until she was 10, to ensure quick access to the child development centre resources. This was urged by the teacher at that time, and explained to me, that children like my child, are not served well by the education system. In today’s world, and here is Canada, if a child is picked up by the health system, having speech delays, and are receiving speech therapy as early as 15 months old, are automatically classified as being special needs. They now know, a good portion of children with speech delays, are children who will have a 95 % or higher chance of having language problems in school. The children who are impacted are children who do not have multiple problems, but rather a single problem.

One of the demands from schools, is signing the form to release all medical information pertaining to the child. A lot of parents are objecting to it, as I have in the past. Besides not having the expertise to read files of other professionals, there is a tendency for educators making decisions on their own personal biases and knowledge that weighs heavily on what type of resources and accommodations are received.

I can speak from experience, as can other parents that having a child outside the norm of a typical child, is not a picnic, nor an easy task dealing with educators, who may or may not have the child’s best interests at heart.

Children who have speech delays, and other minor problems, do not have access to Community Access Centres. The next link will provide videos on what type of client uses the Community Access Centres. And it certainly not the type that only has a speech delay, but are otherwise healthy. Or the type that has learning issues.
http://www.ccac-ont.ca/Content.aspx?EnterpriseID=15&LanguageID=1&MenuID=1057

Here is the Ontario’s Special Education Report, 2008, of the Auditor General’s Office

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en08/314en08.pdf

The report is much like all the other reports on SE that have been conducted in various provinces, over the years. This describes the same problems in SE and the same recommendations. I really like this one, because it provides the data, on the percentage of SE students who are passing the provincial testing. It is quite the eye opening, and does confirmed my observations as well as other parents.

So in a way, TDSBNW has confirmed that the public education system is not about to address the education needs of SE students, even for students who have been identified with only a language problem and for students who have only a reading problem that needs to be address. It also explains why, the public education system, do not provide and spell out specific reading programs that would correct their problems. Heaven forbid, if they had to hired trained reading specialists, who might interfere with presenting the rosy picture that is often presented by the public education system, that in reality is a second-classed education for many of the SE kids.

So in a way, TDSBNW has confirmed that the public education system is not about to address the education needs of SE students,

I have done nothing of the kind. Unfortunately, much of Nancy’s “information” is simply inaccurate.

1) here is Canada, if a child is picked up by the health system, having speech delays, and are receiving speech therapy as early as 15 months old, are automatically classified as being special needs

Not for public school purposes. Regardless of what a child has been identified with before school entry—autism, cerebral palsy, speech and language delays—none translate into a Special Education designation when the child enters school. For the child to receive a Special Education designation, the parent must go to an IPRC with the relevant diagnostic documentation and get an appropriate classification, if the child meets criteria.  Usually agencies like Toronto Preschool Speech and Language services help parents navigate the system, and the child can be set up for an IPRC as early as possible in severe cases (like autism). Also, if a child moves from one Ontario board to another, his or her Speciakl Education designation does not carry over. S/he has to be re-designated, and sometimes this is not possible because the criteria differ from board to board. You can be “Gifted” in Peel, but not in Toronto, or “LD” in Waterloo, but not in York Region.

The TDSB does not have a special classification for speech and language disabilities (other jurisdictions recognize SLI, Specific Language Impairment) but significant language disabilities—not merely articulation and speech—can make a student eligible for a “Learning Disability” designation, but rarely before age 8 or 9, because speech and language issues are developmental and many children “grow out” of them with appropriate intervention.

The TDSB provides a special Kindergarten program in every family of schools for children with language delays, called the Kindergarten Early Language Intervention (KELI), staffed jointly by a teacher and a speech-language pathologist.  The program is very successful in boosting young children’s language skills. Many graduates need no further service in the language area, though some require continued speech therapy for articulation.

(2)Children who have speech delays, and other minor problems, do not have access to Community Access Centres.

Incorrect. They are not served at the centres but in school by CCAC. The occupational therapists, speech therapists and others come to the school and work individually with the child and co-ordinate therapy with the child’s parents and teachers

it certainly not the type that only has a speech delay, but are otherwise healthy. Or the type that has learning issues.

Incorrect..  Most of the children served are children with speech and language delays, motor skills issues, vision or hearing problems.  Most are indeed “otherwise healthy” and some have “learning issues” (we also have workers who can come in and work with children who are not fluent in English to help them develop basic concepts and skills and bridge their knowledge from their native language to English).  Services are also co-ordinated with therapists and professionals from the Geneva Centre for Autism, Surrey Place,  Etobicoke Children’s Centre and many other community agencies, as needed.

(3) the public education system, do not provide specific reading programs that would correct their problems.

Individual students’ IEPs are not to specify particular “programs”—they are for meeting students’ identified instructional needs, not prescribing a specific “fix” that might or might not work. If the IEP is properly written, staff can then seek the materials and methods best suited to teaching that student.

However,  some boards do specify particular programs for students who need them (we have discussed this on other threads) and provide trained teachers to implement the chosen programs, at both the elementary and secondary levels. Some boards do a much better job than others. However, most have reading teachers and intervention specialists to assist those who struggle with reading. TDSB is moving towards having a trained intervention specialist in every high school, and many elementary schools have reading specialists.

As for public education being second-class for many Special Ed kids, that is the whole thinking behind a full inclusion philosophy, and it is supported by the majority of Special Ed parents. They want their child in the mainstream, they don’t want “special help,”  and they support the move towards adaptive technology and differentiation to deal with differences in skill level, cognitive level and developmental level.  Some parents don’t like this movement, but they are a minority. There will still be self-contained classes for those parents and their children.

I see here you feel TDSB is trying hard-I see that too-

Read Children of the Code-certainly you will see if we taught with what these researchers have discovered through empirical research we`d have a 95% success.

I also see that teachers work hard and that the Universities misinform-
For example TDSBNW-Speaking is developmental-Reading is not-they don`t put Reading Spelling and Writing in the developmental basket do they?

Right now with inclusion classrooms it`s a great opportunity and so critical that we find a tea party movement somehow to have education teach explicit systematic synthetic phonics beginning with phonemic awareness training from SK-Grade 3 and grammar in grade 4-that`s where inferencing and main idea summarization can begin because the kids can read so well.
Even in high risk schools-we are teaching this way in Labrador-the successes in whole class teaching supports the success found in the research-

For example TDSBNW-Speaking is developmental-Reading is not-they don`t put Reading Spelling and Writing in the developmental basket do they?

No, I’m not hearing that anyone believes that reading, writing or spelling are basically developmental; they are artificial skills that must be taught.  Some component skills have a developmental basis, however.  Young children have less development of the eye muscles required to alternate rapidly between near-point and far-point (something close up vas. something far away), a process called accommodation, and they may not have developed the visual efficiency skills for convergence, tracking smoothly or reading small print.  There are activities in a book entitled Thinking Goes to School which promote development of these skills in preschool and Kindergarten.

The ability to hold several items in short-term auditory memory (necessary to blend sounds into words, like /f/..../a/..../n/... fan) is another skill that is developmental in nature.  Typically children aged 3-5 can hold several items in short-term memory (5 or 6) but much variation is normal. Children who are slower to develop this skill will have trouble following oral directions, blending sounds into words, or writing down their ideas (they will not be able to hold more than 1 or 2 words in mind).  Lots of practice helps and gradual improvement occurs. .

However, the Ontario Curriculum is not based on the research that informs Children of the Code .  It is underpinned by Fountas and Pinnell or a variant, the Four Blocks approach of Patricia Cunningham, which actually has a stronger instructional component for beginning reading than does the F&P model.  Neither, however, is anything close to systematic synthetic phonics, which the BL gurus abjure.  Their Bibles are Richard Allington’s What Really Works for Struggling Readers and the various works of Regie Routman   Invitations, Conversations, Reading Essentials and Constance Weaver Debbie Millar and Dorothy Strickland.

Even though the Ministry’s Expert Panel on Early Reading Instruction (see report here: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/reading/reading.pdf ) specifically recommended systematic synthetic phonics, the document the MOE produced for teachers (A Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (Kindergarten to Grade 3), 2003 ,available here: http://www.eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Reading_K_3_English.pdf ) left that part out and instead emphasized the Three-Cueing System and Fountas and Pinnell.
.
Ontario will need a major curriculum shift before systematic phonics in any form is part of most schools’ literacy programs. However it does get some use in Special Education, intervention, resource and ESL settings.

Where in Labrador are they implementing your program? In regular classes, or only in Sp. Ed.? I’m familiar with the Labrador coast (not L. City) so am curious.

Chuck, you are confusing what you would like to see happen with what will happen with the ELP. As soon as it is demonstrated, and it will be clear very fast, that the kids in the ELP program are doing much better by grade 1 or 2 that the kids who stayed out of the program, it will become almost universal. The biz community internationally is all behind this type of development because they realize that “human capital” is the most important element in successful economies in the future and ECE is the easiest and most cost effective way to deliver higher levels of human capital.

The almost immediate and overwhelming success of the ELP is guaranteed and will deliver Dalty a 3rd term whether you and I think he deserves one or not.

You will not see Hudak oppose this ELP because it will be a political 3rd rail. Touch it and you die just like socialist medicare, pensions, EI, etc.

What one board does, may be a whole different method used by another board. I will stand by my statement that the public education system are not about to address the needs of the SE children, with an added statement. That many students who are classified as special needs before the age of 4, by government agencies, health agencies, or children services, the only children that will get identified as being special needs in the education system, are the children who have severe problems, and often multiple ones. Children who have had a speech delay or another language problem, due to early intervention,  do not meet the criteria of a IPRC. They are not identified until, their is obvious problems in learning. It does not matter, if the child has full documentation attesting to the problems that a child had before starting school. It is a wait and see approach by the education system. Not at all being pro-active where the research has shown, that delays in oral speech, there is a 95 % chance of learning issues occurring in the school environment.

The next link is a board’s route of getting a child identified as special needs.
http://www.bwdsb.on.ca/STSERV/speced_plan/Guide_S_Needs

The second link is the Toronto board.
http://www.parents-as-partners.ca/.../3-earlyongoingidentification.pdf

Very early intensive speech therapy, is being provided by the child development centres. A savvy parent who knows their young child, as young as 12 months, is having some type of development delay, know how to work the system. I knew there was a problem with my youngest starting at six months. Two routes, either go through the medical route, or go through the child development centres. The trick is with a child, who by all outward appearances appears to have no problems, to get assessed by either a medical professional or in the child development centres. I chose the route of the Ontario Early Years Centres because my family doctor did not see a problem, and enrolled into the Parent and Tot program. Where the parents chatted on parent issues, children development issues, and the tots were in another room, being look after and assessed by another set of ECE and other professionals to see if the child was hitting the normal development milestones in a timely fashion. It did not take too long, for the centre to determine that my child needed to be assessed for a speech delay. Within 6 months of attending the Parent and Tot program, my child was being assessed in the Child Development Centre. Another 4 months or so, after testing for a number of disorders, including autism, it was identified as a major speech delay. Intensive speech therapy, twice a week, 50 minutes per session, and ended at the age of 4. If I had waited, like other parents still do, until school starts, or wait until she was 3, and go through the education system, she would probably still be experiencing oral speech problems and more than likely severe problems in reading and writing.

Now as for being identified as special needs before beginning school, is a label used by the government, as a means to give these children easier access to programs and to be able to take advantage of reduced rates, that often can run in the hundreds of dollars per month. Such programs like a nursery school.  It was the children service agency in my community, that had the authority to identified my child as being special needs, so it would enable my child to attend nursery school of my choice, at a much reduced rates. It was a rare thing back in the late 1990s, but as I have been told recently, it is now a common practice, to have children with mild problems such as speech delays, to be classified as special needs. so they too, have access to the extended programs that children with severe problems have.

However, a lot of parents are not aware of getting early help for their children, nor are they are aware of what lies ahead for children in the education system who have language delays, in pre-school children.  There is a great many parent forums discussing the difficulties of getting the correct services for speech therapy. Here is one of the links, originating from United States where Canadian parents chat about their problems receiving services. The stories are all too common, and very hard to read.

http://www.speechdelay.com/forum/yaf_postst794_Speech-delay-or-disorder.aspx

And here is the link of a Toronto Star article, on the cutback of special ed services at the Toronto Board.
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/766452—special-education-funding-falls-short-toronto-board-says

What special ed parents want is services, to correct the weaknesses that have been identified that directly impacts learning. Reading and writing problems can be corrected for the most part, and where the child has a mild to moderate reading and writing problems, if given the correct reading program/writing program, will become good readers and writers.

Two items that are common misconceptions in the public education system.

” Some component skills have a developmental basis, however.  Young children have less development of the eye muscles required to alternate rapidly between near-point and far-point (something close up vas. something far away), a process called accommodation, and they may not have developed the visual efficiency skills for convergence, tracking smoothly or reading small print.  There are activities in a book entitled Thinking Goes to School which promote development of these skills in preschool and Kindergarten.”

Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology said and state clearly, that:

” Dyslexia and learning disabilities are complex problems that have no simple solutions ...........

Recommendations for multidisciplinary evaluation and management must be based on evidence of proven effectiveness that is demonstrated by objective scientific methodology.4,45,60 It is important that any therapy for learning disabilities be scientifically established to be valid before it can be recommended for treatment.60

Currently, there is no adequate scientific evidence to support the view that subtle eye or visual problems cause learning disabilities.8,30,31,45,46,48–59 Furthermore, the evidence does not support the concept that vision therapy or tinted lenses or filters are effective, directly or indirectly, in the treatment of learning disabilities.# Thus, the claim that vision therapy improves visual efficiency cannot be substantiated. Diagnostic and treatment approaches that lack scientific evidence of efficacy are not endorsed or recommended.

With early recognition and individualized, interdisciplinary management strategies, children with learning disabilities can enjoy successful academic experiences.”

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;124/2/837

It does state clear, what the role of education is concerning children with learning problems. As from a personal observations, using visual problems is an excuse for not providing the proper resources and reading programs until it is apparent that it is a reading problem, a learning problem. I have been their , done it, and yes even in Ontario. It was used as a tactic to delay assessment, and is often used for students who have milder forms of a reading and writing problems. Many parents have brought vision therapy, hook, line and sinker, spending anywhere between $1500 to $2000 dollars, to only find out their child still has a reading problem. Oh yes, other medical associations from different countries support and agree with the American Paediatrics’s viewpoint and stance on vision problems and learning problems.

The second misconception:

“The ability to hold several items in short-term auditory memory (necessary to blend sounds into words, like /f/..../a/..../n/... fan) is another skill that is developmental in nature.  Typically children aged 3-5 can hold several items in short-term memory (5 or 6) but much variation is normal. Children who are slower to develop this skill will have trouble following oral directions, blending sounds into words, or writing down their ideas (they will not be able to hold more than 1 or 2 words in mind).  Lots of practice helps and gradual improvement occurs. .”

Developed in nature?  As far as I know, the sounds must be taught. Children who are having difficulty following directions, blending sounds, putting thoughts on paper, and short term memory problems are part of the top 10 signs of a learning problem in the primary grades. I don’t know why educators who work in the public education system, think a little bit of 5 minute instruction in the classroom here and there, will help the children to overcome learning problems. They do not go away. What they need is a systematic phonics program. It is what parents want for their children, to be able to read and write well.

Otherwise, why are parents paying good money for the specialized private tutoring, or pulling their kids out of the public schools, or fighting for services in the public education system?  Why are all the reports from all the provinces, stating and citing the same problems and themes in special education, that access to special ed services is hard to do, getting access to the proper reading programs and trained personnel, and special ed classes are mostly remedial in nature, and mostly composed of a water-down version of the regular curriculum.

Add the professionals from other fields, all saying the same thing, there is a massive amount of data and knowledge that is a mountain of evidence, that is declaring that there must be a massive shift away from whole language and balance literacy to a systematic phonics approach.

Answering TDSBNW-

They are doing it preventatively whole classroom in SK and Grade 1-Labrador School Board-31 schools-as well as in Alberta one board with 17 schools and 4 Train the Trainers-and 92 trained teachers-SK-Grade 3 and intervention which includes SE-

Tomorrow I will address Fountais and Pinell as well as Dr.Allington-their theories and the research gap and why it doesn`t work with the real strugglers-
-these programs have a very mild impact-we keep doing things that don`t dramatically help the bottom 40%.

I am now doing a tremendous amount of work in First Nations-prevention is what is important with early intervention-SK-3 -Instruction in multisensory explicit systematic synthetic phonics is unbelievable-we`re keeping data-we`ll be able to show it in a few years-

No Doug. Allow me to explain what you don’t seem to want to hear.

The ELP is not going over well in may parts of the province.

It’s not just social table talk at gatherings it’s being heard by school boards in the media also.

It’s simply the wrong initiative at the wrong time put in place to keep teachers employed.

It would seem when planning this initiative the gov’t has made a huge mistake in determining need, which is the first essential step in drawing up policies of this nature.

It’s a program that’s going to break school boards, and eventually flounders as boards quietly back off them.

Watch and wait.

Wrong as usual Chuck. You simply don’t seem to understand that in the cruel calculus of Ontario politics, only about 30 seats actually count. The opinions of people in seats that voted Tory by substantial margins recently simply don’t matter. The opinions of people in safe NDP or Liberal seats don’t matter either. It is the opinions of people in 30 or so “SWING SEATS” that actually matter and 50% of them are Peel, York and Durham.

Of course the far right sound machine is doing what it can to knock the concept but there is a big problem for them. Those that do not want the program simply do not sign up and if a significant number do not there is no program in that school. It is not mandatory Chuck. You will see a universal program within 3 years however as people realize their kids will be left behind if they don’t join.

Before ELP can happened, a school must have at least 13 enrolled and that is the minimum. If 13 or more enrolled, the daycare portion starts up. The chances of 13 being enrolled in any ELP is very likely. The chances of the 13, being low income will be likely. Not only does the board have to cough up the monies for salaries of two ECE workers, the costs of setting it up for a low number of children, is just as much as setting it up for 20 children or more, and now the board has to come up with the extra monies to cover the costs of the subsidized kids.  Boards have stated, at least several of them, they need at least 10 paying parents, to just break even, at the end of the day.

The operating costs are mounting, for ELP. I highly doubt it will ever become universal, except in areas that have a high concentration of low-income. That is providing that all low-income are working full-time. Here again, no one has thought of the part-timers, where a person might need daycare for 3 days a week, or 3 half days. Even now, daycare operations, only allow kids in, where the parents are working full-time. Plus add, the parents who are not working, and the parent who is staying at home , taking care of the kids, and the parents only have the choice of family members, the neighbours or friends looking after their own kids.

If the ELP, included the part-timers, than there is a greater chance of ELP becoming universal. Another consideration, what happens in areas where income is much higher, and there is more choice. Plus more services available, daycare and nursery schools. There is parents willing to pay a bit more, and the nursery and daycare is of a better quality . Plus at some facilities, like the YMCA, how are you going to complete with swimming sessions, tot gym, and all the other things they offer to kids, and their parents. These kids even go on little field trips.

TDSBNW-Ontario`s flawed choices in pedagogy

Dr.Allington is a Reading Recovery proponent as well as a leveled reader(whole language)theorist for whole class instruction-I say that because he does not believe in an explicit systematic phonics approach-as you have so aptly stated.He likes the Fountas and Pinell work because   in leveled readers we do not teach Reading explicitly but through stories and context clues.It does create a fun classroom I grant you.That will bring success to some girls-fail many boys and leave at risk children who`s brain is malleable in the early years without the phonemic awareness training they desperately need to stop them from going into the academic abyss.
As we read the research from neuroscience we see the left brain has the language processing centre(MRI imaging-Read Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz as well as Diane McGuinessWhy OurChildren Can`t Read and What We Can Do About It)—the stated theories honored in Ontario feed the right brain-the centre where we make sense of everything and leaves us struggling how to figure it out-Reading-Spelling and Writing need to be taught .To do so we follow a process-teach phonemes(a hearing exercise that chops the speech segments and makes us use the left brain not memory(Right Brain)-thus the Dibels test-then show them the picture of the sound-called phonic-here`s the difference from years gone by-the phonemic awareness begins at the speech-articulation level-oral language.We have misinterpreted the junction of oral language teaching by beginning with vocabulary instruction-the above teaching is a precursor-the vocab teaching is separate and should occur in a different component of the instruction-and students should not be asked to memorize word lists.
This teaching brings a scientific approach to spelling-instead of winging it-they know the speech sounds in the words and how the sounds look-bravo-I feel 3 phonemes in my mouth and they look like this-sh/ar/k.

Patricia Cunningham-Certainly I think we scratch our heads in the field when work from the University of North Carolina has superceded the half billion dollar study of the NICHD-Reid Lyon-Torgesen-Moats-Lieberman-Beck-Foorman-Fletcher-Ehri-Stanovich-Siegel-Shaywitz-We scratch our heads-might it be a publisher?

In other words-Four Blocks is great-BUT it misses all the stuff that will halt the crash of failure-we NEED explicit systematic synthetic phonics-that begins with phonemic awareness training so kids can do much better.

I know from my 5 year clinical trial-print awareness is a taught process-also very explicit instruction required.

If I sound angry-I apologize-it is frustrating and confusing to us here that the research of the NICHD -Empirically proven- would not be the instruction mandated by the Ministry.

Jo-Anne, you don’t need to convince anyone here, I’m sure. We are probably all familiar with the NICHD research, to a lesser extent with the UK and European research, and have read the works you cite and many more. However, these findings and their implications are completely dismissed by the Ministry and board-level curriculum and instruction people. Those are the ones who need a change of outlook.  It’s not that they do not know about the research – they know, and dismiss it as irrelevant.

Bonnie Grossen and Doug Carnine have (separately) written compelling essays on why teaching is not a research-based (evidence-based) profession, and what it would take to make it one.  Keith Stanovitch, in Progress in Understanding Reading has an essay that hypothesizes, in part, that the belief systems in public education can be explained by meme theory (see a fascinating book entitled Virus of the Mind)

While other parts of the English-speaking world are slowly adopting more evidence-based practices where literacy is concerned, Ontario (and other parts of Canada) are merrily adopting fads and insisting on stereotyping students by “learning styles” (shown to have no empirical validity) and making ridiculous demands of teachers to plan lessons that teach to the “multiple intelligences” (an idea whose educational implications even its originator disagrees with, and which has not been accepted by mainstream psychologists as scientifically tenable) and “differentiated” to multiple grade levels in every class..

If you can convince Labrador school boards to try more evidence-based teaching, perhaps you can influence provincial ministries as well.  Neither parents nor teachers have much, if any, impact on these curricular matters at the provincial level.

More on the ELP program, and where I will raise red flags that is behind the ELP concepts.

“Kindergarten Credit is a non-partisan grassroots group that aims to put a halt to the McGuinty government’s top-down implementation of All-day Kindergarten and ‘no-choice’ government-controlled childcare in Ontario communities.” 
http://www.kindergartencredit.ca/

What the ELP program is attempting to do, is admirable, but unrealistic, in today’s world. Unrealistic, is that children who are experiencing development delays, should actually be seen by the physicians and the health specialists. It is the fastest route to get help, and will be so for a long time in the future. The ELP program attempts to pick up, where the health professionals may wait for more conclusive proof that there is a problem. Here in lies the problem, of using assessment, documentation and intervention processes.

As Kindergarten Credit, points out, ” 4. Assessment, documentation & intervention:
There is continual talk of correcting problems before it is too late. (Pascal: “The
goal is to catch problems in children well before they enter the Early Learning Program.” p. 28)
While only a tiny minority of children have problems that need serious intervention
(see Section 3 on research below), Pascal’s report continually implies that problems are so pervasive – and parents too unable to notice and address them – that the state must provide universal ‘screening’ and quite often ‘interventions’.”

It is the use of assessments and one in particular that will be used in the ELP program. It is called the Red Flags.

“Red Flags is a Quick Reference Guide designed to assist Early Years Professionals in deciding whether to refer for additional advice, assessment and/or treatment. It is not a formal screening or diagnostic tool.”

http://www.ourbeststart.ca/Lambton/physicians/Pages/default.aspx

The above link is called Best Start. Further down the page are links. The fourth link is the Red Flags file. It is directed at the ECE workers. I too, would be alarmed if the ELP centres are using this guide to identified problems, and put in placed the interventions.

“Who Should Use “Red Flags”
This Quick Reference Guide is intended to be used by any professional working with young children
and their families. A basic knowledge of healthy child development is assumed. Red Flags will assist professionals in identifying when a child could be at risk of not meeting his/her health and/or
developmental milestones, triggering an alert for the need for further investigation by the appropriate
discipline.”

Note, there is no interventions at the ELP centre, relating to the learning of the child. The ELP program is to have a child ready for learning. How does a young child, who are exhibiting signs of a learning disability, is going to get any help for the Learning Disability Association?  What the child needs, is to be taught reading early on. They need to learn the sounds of language. Speech therapy teaches a child to speak, but not the phonemic awareness and sounds of speech, needed before learning to read.

The weakness and it is a big one, that the ELP program is based on a education philosophy, rather than the science. A child like mine, would still land in grade 1, with reading struggles. The Kindergarten Credit, is correct to state, “We trust parents. Research continually shows that strong childhood development occurs only when and if parents are empowered to act as their child’s ‘first agent’. This plan by the McGuinty government, if coupled with the full recommendations in their commissioned ‘Early Learning Report’, goes well beyond all-day Kindergarten to include the potential for a wholesale restructuring of social policy for families with children from ages 0 to 12. It would diminish the role of parents in the lives of their own children.”

Parents need to have the knowledge, and not have others act on our behalf. It is this lack of knowledge, that prevents parents from making good decisions for their children.

“However, these findings and their implications are completely dismissed by the Ministry and board-level curriculum and instruction people. Those are the ones who need a change of outlook.  It’s not that they do not know about the research – they know, and dismiss it as irrelevant.”

My background is in financial services, not education.  I can’t begin to explain how weird it looks to have the province mandate a particular method of teaching children.  (Would it look weird to you if a provincial Ministry of Investment required financial advisors to manage portfolios using a government “approved” investment curriculum, er, process?)  But I digress.

I wanted to ask TDSBNW, Jo-anne and others what they thought it would take to influence “the system” to conatin more than one approach.  Knowledgable politicians that would bust open the Ministry of Ed?  Activist parents?

Or am I being too ambitious?  Are the necessary changes so potentially disruptive we should leave well enough alone?

I’m open to suggestions.

TDSBNW-

Thanks for your reply-having “friends"in the System they replicate your statement and tell me what goes on-to those of us enlightened it really is"what IS it?”

I guess ego from individuals-I will read the book you recommend.
I do know that teacher licensing Universities encourage creativity so much it leaves no room for scientific research application.
Thank You

“Are the necessary changes so potentially disruptive we should leave well enough alone?”

Dave,it is the reverse that is true-leaving things as they are is a multi billion dollar economic problem for our country-these kids grow up and end up in the penal system and the welfare system-

It sounds like just an EQAO score-but just think about it-by Grade 10 you have a drop out or a person passed along in school so he gets a certificate in spite of level 2 skills-Then what-they cannot make it anywhere-and oh yes-those poor kids in Grade 4-8 that are behavioural-just test and analyze their reading and spelling(3 grades below level)-then read a story to them and ask them the oral comprehension questions-BINGO!They are smart and do comprehend but they all thought he`d learn to read through osmosis.Look up Balanced Literacy-it starts with books and stays with books-no instruction.
Learn to spell?Memorize.

I happen to be very aware of the work of Grossen and Carnine. They are very strong advocates for Direct Instruction, as well as providing effective methods for the classroom, as well as at home. I really like their work in organization skills, that also provides effective methods.

Here is the essay, called “What Does it Mean to be a Research-Based Profession?”, by Grossen.
I think this is what TDSBNW is referring to.

http://www.donet.com/~eprice/resprf.htm

Here is the link to Frank Mckenna`s document on the price society pays for being cavalier about literacy-

http://www.td.com/economics/special/literacy_pr.pdf

I have read similar reports like McKenna, on the economic costs. What is missing are the facts concerning public education. The essays dance around the public education system, and their inability to provide all, with good reading, writing and numeracy skills.

For example, in the last paragraph of the TD document: “Yet Mr. McKenna notes improved literacy rates extend well beyond economic gain. “No price tag can be placed on parents who read bedtime stories to their children. It’s an immeasurable but profoundly valuable investment for family, community and society as a whole.”
TD prepared this report with the intent to shine a spotlight on literacy and provoke discussion about
current challenges. This is the first in a series of studies, with future installments focusing on specific issues or dimensions. The bank also invests more than $1.5 million in children’s literacy programs annually, including the TD Summer Reading Club and TD Canadian Children’s Book Week that encourage children to discover the joy of reading.”

What does this remind anyone?  That nasty philosophy of balance literacy, that produces the poor readers and writers. Where is the science?  If interest from the financial world, is there in literacy, in forms of programs such as summer reading clubs, have they not question the need of such programs, in the light of rising stats of poor literacy skills of young adults?  Who are they talking to?  They need to be informed on the science of reading, and go after the public education system, for producing a steady supply of poor readers and writers.

Nancy and all-we must develop a very expensive thought out strategic plan-perhaps Malkin and Doretta at SQE can acquire a grant for the exposure of the dilemma-They`ve probably scratched their heads at a thousand board meetings already on this one-It’s so tricky because we start to look like the crazy radicals where those people look perfect-

Tricky stuff-very sadly-we have to walk on eggshells till they get the required strategy-fighting the governments-we need the FEDS-That`s what has created the frenzy in the U.S.-and the clout.

TD asked the Ministry of Ed. for advice-that`s how they got their strategy-

Yes, it has to be well-thought out, not only on the professional levels, but as well as the social level. Now, I do not as a rule, go to social events or even for that matter on a day to day, where I meet people who are in a positions of power, and trust. In other words, SQE and others, are more than likely to meet these people, than a every day person. At social events, there is opportunities to approach the subject of reading, and literacy. No matter how high the social ranking, most people have strong opinions, but no real sense of the solutions. A person who has the solutions, can provide them. One can called it networking. but it is effective to promote change, and without sounding like a radical. 

Parents on the other hand, including parents who have left the education system, can change the thought processes of parents, over a cup of coffee.  For example, a lot of parents are not aware that reading must be taught. As I have discovered, the information/knowledge that they have, are of the kind, read to your child, expose them to the world of books, etc. What they do not know, that reading must be taught, and the second piece, is that reading is not connected with intelligence. One parent, whose child is having difficulty in reading, the light will come on. As for the parents whose child had no difficulty in reading, the light that comes on, is being aware that this is why my child’s best friend, or another family member is having difficulties. Both have misconceptions of reading.

This is rather simplistic, but it is effective for change to happen. Anyone that walks in my house, soon learned the differences. I often used my own child as an example. They see a child, who is quick and verbally nimble, and appears bright and intelligent. They are often surprised that she is not a good reader and writer, yet my child has much higher grades than their own children. Than the real chat begins on the woes of the public education system, and literacy.

As for grants, to exposed it, that should be on the top of everyone’s list. I cannot see why, conventions, seminars, etc cannot be conducted in the same way, as in the health field, or in other fields. What I have found, that organizations such as the LD associations, puts on something, often the parents are absent, due to high costs of attending the events.  So unlike the United States. One can have all the assembled experts in one room, but without the parents, to show the examples of the reading policies of the education system, everyone will agree that something must happen, but again the mover and shakers will be unmoved to change policies.

The autism societies, are an example that should be followed. They have done a very fine job in informing the public on the issues of autism, they have as well made parents to become activists for their autism children. They have worked at the high levels of politics, to keep it a front issue where policies are formed. But even here, progress seems to stopped once the child enters the public school and the education policies impacts the autism child.

It is the education system, and a plan has to be form, to bring in the people who can influence policy and make wholesale changes to the public education system.

A few years ago in NL, there was this meeting of minds, where a meeting was held and all media was present, to hear parents state why their ‘little Suzie’ was not getting the help they needed in school. It also included letters read out, from parents who could not attend the meeting. Close to 200 parents attended, as well as the letters being read out, all stating more or less the same theme, their children were children that are poor readers, and schools were not meeting their needs. Some of the ministry of education staff, attended the meeting. Shortly after that, the education ministry set up a commission to report on the state of special education in the province. It was a damning report, but what was missing in the report, was to call for wholesale changes to the curriculum, and reading approaches, such as balanced literacy, and tossed them in the trash, in favour of approaches that have the science and evidence behind them.

I just had a crazy thought.

Is there any interest out there for a social event?  Say a BBQ in Juneb or something.  Blogs can only go so far.  For action, some people would have to meet face to face.

Toronto would be a good central location (maybe not for Nancy so much ).  I’d come.

Don’t worry about me. Ontario is the epic-centre for change in Canada. Most provinces follows Ontario lead in education issues, perhaps with the exception of BC. Than again, BC has strong vocal parents who have pushed for change,

Most research is taking place in Ontario, including the research of the 50s and 60s, that is still being used as historical data in the research of today, that is happening in North America and the rest of the world. Within Ontario, there is lot of normal every day folk, that admires Alberta’s way of doing things. I know one thing, if my child stepped into a public school there, it would not take too long,for the school to start to addressed her reading concerns. And it be done, even if they had to hold her back for one year to do it. I know of 3 kids, from NL, who were known as low achievers, and they certainly can no longer be describe as low achievers. The low boys or gals on the political circuit, or even the lowly bench-sitting MPPs, you be surprised how many family members are having trouble in learning how to read. Many have chosen the private tutoring route, and to remain quiet about the reading issues. I discovered that one day, when I contacted a provincial MHA, on comments he made about the education system. In our conversation, he admitted that his own family members have had problems learning to read. He learned something to that day, how many are having problems learning how to read well, and the lack of options for parents.

My point is, a group of like-minded people, do bring a host of various different social contacts. Start using them for this purpose. First contact, done on a social level can be a great way of leveling out the playing field. Sometimes, not all the time, it is who you know that gets things done.

Dear Nancy-you`ll soon be shunned socially-this is not the way-

It requires a meeting by Malkin with a Cabinet Minister at the Federal level after she and Doretta figure out how to strategize the campaign-and they need money to plot well-a lobby in a way.

I give your 1000 points for your passion but the complexity of this is so huge-it`s big business,academia plus politics!
They got Reading First under Bush and between big business and divergent Academia they killed it-

Yes, but one needs a steady source of funding. The source of funding in the beginning has to come from the parents. It is the small donations that make a difference, that allows others like Malkin to go ahead one step at a time. At the same time, work on the big donations. The grass root base could come out of every organization across the country that is dealing with some aspect of the education systems. From autism societies, to literacy organizations, to the homeschoolers and everything in between. There is also the women’s associations, and even the old grand Women’s Institute that still exists in parts of Canada. Senior citizens groups is another source. One might be surprise what senior citizens think about the public education system. One needs numbers, before advancing the cause to senior politicians.

Prime Minister Harper did not come unto the scene, without the support of the grassroots. He has an army of them working in behind the scenes, and at the very least, giving regular small donations.

One needs an effective marketing strategy, in order for the voice to be heard and listen to. These days, it does not matter how right the cause is, but rather how one is position in the market. In the public education field, the policy makers make policy on what looks good, and not necessarily good for the students, or even society as a whole. It is time to change tactics.

The major problem is that the groups and people that are on the side of SQE and share more or less the same vision, are so fragmented. Each of them speaking on their own, without the proper vehicle to effect change. Each is alone, when all should be united in one voice.

Change in society, never happens in a vacuum. It never happens in the form of one person or one group. History has shown that. The period before WWI and after WWI, was where great changes occurred in society, especially in areas of education and health. There was economic forces at work, but there was a political will at work at all levels of society. The political will probably was the single factor responsible for change. It was the right thing to do, and in the best interests of their citizens.

Society is in the midst of great change, brought on by technological change. Likewise, newspapers are in the same place, as education is. Here is a link, titled, Newspaper and Thinking the Unthinkable. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/

“Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world increasingly resembled the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. Meanwhile the people spinning visions of popular walled gardens and enthusiastic micropayment adoption, visions unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.”

The same image is occurring in education. SQE are treated as though they were barking mad. And the public education system, are spinning visions of an education for all, all filtered through a social filter and are considered the saviours. Yet it is them that wants to keep the public education as is.

The time is ripe for change in Canada. The political circles is the vehicle to enact the changes in the education system via through the processes of political will. If Canadian history serves me right, the most important changes in Canadian society prior to Confederation and post-Confederation, are changes that started with the ordinary people of the day, until there was a saturation point, where change was made through the political route.

To show you the magnitude of the Reading War-think of Children of the Code-even they are not able to convince and create the curricular recommendations-

Certainly-they are way ahead of us in the U.S.and U.K -but if you think New York City with all it`s reforms is doing it-wrong-the Universities adhere to Balanced Literacy other than Columbia-in spite of their stated desires to raise scores-go see what goes on in a classroom-

Dr.Keith Stanovich`s lab was on the 3rd floor at OISE-He is revered all over the world for his Reading Research-effects on teacher prep at OISE-zero-and rebellion-we disagree-in the face of research???

It is individual thought and opinion that guides the Ministry.