If we needed any more proof of where the public education system gets its bright ideas, this is it!

What strikes me as funny is that OSSTF wants us to believe it’s for the good of the students. It’s all about cold hard cash!

Why not just wrap this up in a nice bundle and call it what it is? “Social Engineering 101”  All that’s missing is the fee required by students to purchase the required equipment for the courses - tinfoil hats, kool-aid, and the required text “Excuses in Education R Us”.

Now if they could only teach kids to read or do basic arithmetic:-)

I joined SQE wanting to see progressive ideas for education—and do see it in some of the articles.  The “ideas” proposed here are NOT progressive.  In fact, I am hoping they are some kind of tongue in cheek joke.  Obviously, mdare has a political axe to grind that should not be appearing in classes for young people.  While critical thinking and informed debate is much needed, what proposed here is a wacky agenda.  I would yank my kids out of class if they came home with any of the following on their minds: anti-science (v. the reality of climate change) or anti-reality (wishful thinking v. the reality that kids will always be having sex, and we need them to be careful, Ms. Palin).  As for the remaining three issues, we do not need half-baked analysis.  Let’s stick to the three R’s for grade school.  And please tell me this was a joke.

Scary sounds oddly like another frequent contributor to this forum. The political jabs give him away.

You would be encouraged to take you children out of school if you didn’t like what was being taught.

Wonderful if others were able to make choices like you.

What’s scary is that you expect SQE to tow a progressive line? Progressive to me equals more eduspeak for accepting the status quo and the curriculum taught our kids developed by teacher unions to satisfy a socialist agenda.

Dear Scary,

Honestly now, how do you expect there to be time for the three R’s when the kids are always going to be having sex?

What a dismal view of humanity you have.

As they say in sports, when there is an unexpected result, “That’s why they play the games”.

Aim at nothing, and you are sure to hit it.

I agree with Chuck, above, about the reflexive political nature of your remarks.  Blanket dismissal of the material here, but no concrete, substantive reason other than the classic liberal unthought; “Man is the measure of all things, and I am the measure of man”.

Just ‘cuz.

I’ll file this one under the sudden discovery of a sense of humour at SEQ. Mdare can’t be serious about science denial, Victorian, recession producing, antideluvian policy proposals.

Oh no you don’t Doug. There’s nothing at all funny about the OSSTF dangling a monetary carrot as payoff to a more socially engineered curriculum for unsuspecting children and their parents who are blind to who the real power behind public education is in Ontario. It’s not the government either.

I don’t think Malkin’s kidding in the least. As a matter of fact that OSSTF call to arms needs as much exposure as possible. I do believe that SEQ is being much kinder than most.

I’m not an OSSTF member, but it is only fair to point out that these topics and “social engineering” orientation are not coming from OSSTF (or at least, did not originate with them).  It is coming from the board and MOE level, at least in T.O.

We are told even our mathematics lesson plans have to be related to social justice. We are indundated with board-generated mandatory directives on aboriginal issues, environmentalism, anti-heterosexism (I am not making this up), anti-racism [why do we have to be ant—everything? Why not *for* peace, harmony, etc instead of against this and that? Sorry, rhetorical question].

I have a stack of this stuff a metre tall. None of it is from OSSTF or ETFO.  If OSSTF is commisioning lesson plans on such topics, it is because their members are being pressured (by non-OSSTF administrators) to teach lessons on these topics.

Small wonder there’s no time to teach reading,writing or math, which have taken a back seat to “higher level thinking.”

Just thought people should know that an amazing amount of this piffle comes right from the top. Teachers arerequired to comply whether they agree with it or not.

I stand corrected. Thanks TDSBNW, but tell me who’s money is it that the OSSTF is paying for lesson plans?
I understand that the gov’t does give the unions tax dollars no?

How badly are the arms of the unions being twisted by the government is my next question? Why don’t the unions just say no? Could it be because philisophically the MOE, boards and unions are singing from the same songsheet?

They all sound like GREAT ideas to me. I’m all for social engineering. You guys say it like it is a bad thing. We need a lot of government leadership with union help in the curriculum to eliminate, sexism, classism, racism, homophobia, global warming and many other social ills. I have been trying to persuade the teachers’ unions for many years that their real strength is making a new better world through the curriculum. I am so glad to see they join forces with the MOE and the boards to eliminate old fashoned thinking on these social questions. They also teach the positive contributions of unions throughout our history and how bad things would be with no unions.

When there is the opportunity they demonstrate that unbribled capitalism leads directly to depressions as we just witnessed so we need a lot of regulation of markets and if necessary direct government ownership.

At least some progress is being made. Good for OSSTF, the MOE and the TDSB.

In response to Scary’s comment, first of all I’d like to make it clear that I was trying to make a point about how inappropriate it is for the OSSTF to be championing only leftwing causes such as homophilia and socialism. Why is it okay for schools to try to brainwash kids in ways that suit one political agendum but not another?
This was my primary point, but I wouldn’t want to mislead Scary about my not having my own axe to grind. Although obviously Scary finds it hard to believe that I could possibly stand behind the ideas that I put forward in my posting, in fact they are all ideas that I personally agree with and furthermore support being presented to high school students as part of a well-rounded treatment.
1. Climategate: in my opinion, the globe is not warming dangerously and, if the world is getting warmer (which I am not convinced of), it has nothing to do with human activity.
2. While I do support the provision of information about birth control and STD’s to young teenagers, at the same time I think they should also hear about the benefits of abstinence.
3. The fall of the Soviet Union and the prosperity of free market economies make it hard to maintain a belief in centrally-planned economies. You will find very few modern economists who believe otherwise.
4. Where universal childcare has been implemented, the costs have been astronomical and the benefits negligible. I support a free market approach to child care.
5. I have often written in this blog and elsewhere about my distress over the disproportionate destructiveness of child-centred learning when it comes to disadvantaged children.
There are undoubtedly dozens of other divergent perspectives between Scary and me, and I ask again: why should the OSSTF support the presentation of only his perspective?

OSSTF is a private organization that collects private dues and has every right to promote any views it likes. The fact that these are congruent with the views of the government and many boards is just convenient.

1) Climate change and global warming denial places its advocates in opposition to almost all legitimate scientific opinion in the world.
2) Abstinance is an interesting and very naive quaint concept. Good luck with that.
3) The unregulated market leads directly to greed, fanancial instability and depression. 1929, 2009, how many examples do we need of conservatives in concert with big business running the economy off the cliff?
4) Latest study by Wilder group in Michigan just released demonstrates that the states earlier efforts in ECE are now paying off handsomely by saving the state over $1 billion per year in less crime, welfare, special education, grade retention, higher incomes, and so on. The study concludes that if the state spent even more on ECE it would save even more on its bottom line. Conservative thinkers need to some day understand that all investments in education are just that, investments in better than blue chip. They are not expenditures.

5) Disadvantaged children, see #4.