Oh Malkin-the old CEO dictatorship who have no idea about the teaching details leads to a Ministry with no regard for the school boards and their challenges.
It is all about getting political brownie points and killing the environments that educate children and harness teachers and schools.
Between the strictly political decisions and the very flawed pedagogical leadership we put the children of Ontario at risk and demoralize teachers.

Hi Malkin;
I don’t know it you have watched this. You may well have had it on the blog before, if not here is a 60 minutes piece about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di0-xN6xc_w&feature=related

One issue, I think, is that even if you accept the rather dubious claim that textbooks are “old-fashioned” you do have to fund whatever the replacement is; likely computer-based.  If you’re cutting both the textbook budget and access via electonic means what you’re saying is that students won’t get the material in any form.

On the issue of not funding the costs of the ELP this is another example of the McGuinty Liberals wanting full credit for introducing massive new programs without taking the responsibilty for them.

What steps has the SCDSB taken to adjust to what looks to be a massive reduction in kids, from 57,000 to about 49,000?  Hopefully the infrastructure and staffing levels have been brought into line with a significant reduction in student numbers.  Adjusting/reducing staff to a level in line with the number of kids being served is probably pretty controversial but you don’t need the same number of people to accomodate 8,000 fewer kids.

As the title suggests, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Boards are cutting core services dealing with children. Take a look at the budget highlights for 2010.

“That’s why, for the eighth consecutive year, Ontario continues to invest in education and has increased its annual investment by more than $5.8 billion—a 40 per cent increase—since coming to office.  This does not include the investment in full-day early learning.

KEY FACTS

§      The Grants for Student Needs (GSN) is the annual funding provided by the Ministry of Education to school boards to support educational programs and services, staffing and the maintenance of school facilities.

§      The 2010-11 GSN is increasing to $20.2 billion—up more than $694 million (3.6 per cent) over last year. 

§      Per pupil funding in 2010-11 is projected to rise to $10,730—that’s $464 (4.5 per cent) more per student than last year.  This represents an increase of more than $3,500 per student since 2002-03—an increase of almost 50 per cent.”

http://www.news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2010/03/grants-for-student-needs-2010-11-highlights.html

It may look great to the average eye, but what appears to be increase financing for students, is not at all. Boards right across Ontario, will be cutting or reducing basic student programs, in order to pay for the increases in salaries and increase costs in utilities. The exception is special education. It is where their has been increase funding.

The funding has a hitch, which will impact schools. The hitch will directly impact special education children, in the education part. What most people do not know, that the majority of children who have been identified are sitting in the regular classroom or being pulled out for certain classes. Few if any are being pulled out for educational services, which for the most part is reading. Most SE children need intensive targeted reading programs, because the present programs of balanced literacy or whole language does not provide for their needs.

The Ontario SE funding, provides for everything, except for the educational programs, such as reading, writing, that often need special instruction in very small group instruction.

Take a look of what is provided:
“The High Needs Amount addresses the cost of providing the intensive staff support required by the small number of pupils with very high needs.

The Special Equipment Amount covers the cost of an individual student’s equipment needs in excess of $800 in the year of purchase.  Eligibility criteria are outlined in the Special Education Funding Guidelines: Special Equipment Amount (SEA), 2009-10 (PDF, 376 KB).

The Special Incidence Portion (SIP) supports pupils with exceptionally high needs who require more than two full-time staff to address health and safety needs. Eligibility criteria for SIP are outlined in the document entitled Special Education Funding Guidelines: Special Incidence Portion (SIP), 2009-10 (PDF, 403 KB).

The Facilities Amount provides funding for educational programs serving pupils who are receiving their education through facilities such as hospitals, children’s mental health centres, psychiatric institutions, detention and correctional facilities, community living/group homes, and other social services agencies. The provision of education in these facilities is subject to an agreement between a district school board and a facility.

In addition to the Foundation Grant and the Special Education Grant, other special purpose grants may assist the school board to meet needs of some exceptional pupils. Please visit the Education Funding page for more detailed information.”
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/funding.html

SE funding, is pitting the high needs students against the low needs students. The low needs students are the ones who have the reading and writing problems. The basic deficit is in reading, at various levels, and where no one student have exactly the same problems. In lieu of SE services, the low-needs students are being accommodated, but their weaknesses in reading are not being address, except in the classroom. For students who have reading deficits, they lose out because to address the reading deficits, requires trained staff and a block of time.

As Caroline Smith has stated, that the board’s staff has cut the Reading Recovery program and reductions in school basic budgets, this is just the tip of the reductions soon to come. The largest sub-group of SE, the LD kids and the unidentified kids in the classroom, are going to take a big hit, where their education is concern. It is their reading and writing that needs addressing. By nickle and diming these kids at the elementary and primary stages, one can be assured of that the stats in high school will continue, with a ever increasing rate of low reading and writing skills.

They aren’t spending our tax dollars properly.  Salaries and benefits are too high, as they don’t reflect what these educrats would be making in the private sector, and for goodness sakes some children’s only exposure to books is in school, and now they’re saying that they’re old fashioned!
They can’t seem to get anything right.  Oftentimes I wonder if everything the government runs is more or less a waste of tax payers’ money.

wait for it folks.
The nature next step for a Min. of Ed. philosophy which claims textbooks old-fashion is to further convince the populace that reading isn’t nearly as necessary as it once was.

The push now for school council parents is to raise money for Smart Boards. I sure hope most know that just having Smart Boards will not actually make kids smart or teachers effective in their adoption as the next best thing to books.

When one buys almost anything a good rule is to buy the best and make it last. If school districts followed this rule, money could be saved on text books. I have seen wonderful math texts discarded for something merely flashy looking.

I agree that textbooks are old-fashioned.  I’m referring, however, to the “books” half of the word, not the “text” part.

The SDCSB is my local board.  The textbook issue was actually mentioned to me in passing by a local educator.  From what I recall, the idea was to replace physical textbooks with a USB a kid would wear around his wrist and plug into some sort of laptop/mobile device.  The kid would access the textbook material through the device.

While not much may change in the short run, the long term potential is fascinating.  How about a etextbook geared to the user? - say a math text that demphasizes language but covers the same material.  It might look like the Quicktax software - a big honking resource in the background but you only see the pieces that pertain to you.

Doretta and Malkin, I submit a much bigger issue is the (mis)use of the Trillium List.  The “textbooks” described on the website don’t look like textbooks to me so much as entire curriculum structures.  Also, the three main publishers on the list are all part of much larger corporate structures.  I think there’s a lot to say here, but it will have to keep for another time.

Dave mentioned the advantages and potential of high tech devices in our schools. My question is are the public school system, willing to change the rules and regulations that prevents the manipulation of text into its various formats?  I doubt it, because I believe the pressure of buying e-textbooks is coming from the publishers and not necessary from the boards, or teachers or even parents. It may not benefit the kids.

Few schools are equipped, where students can access the school’s computers at home, and this is needed, if e-textbooks are going to become the norm. I would suggest that the 15 % cut to textbook buying, will be going to help the schools get more connected, and the training needed to used the tools. Plus the adjustment parents are going to need, to provide the support for the use of them at home.

As for declining enrollment it is not surprised to anyone. It has been forecast since the late 1980s of the decline in enrollment.

Here is one study from the Canadian Council for Learning, 2006.
http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/20060921LinL_DecliningEnrolment.htm

“On the other side of the country, Newfoundland & Labrador has developed its own innovative approaches to solving the staffing and program delivery problems posed by declining enrollments. Faced with persistent and sharp declines in enrollment, Newfoundland & Labrador has been forced to contend with the challenges of declining enrollment to a much greater extent than any of the other provinces. As the other provinces begin more belatedly to experience similar challenges, the solutions developed in Newfoundland & Labrador can provide valuable insights.”

By the way, all schools can now access long-distance learning courses. There is some positives living in NL, and one of them, is government’s ability to lay the ground work of the infrastructure needed so all schools and all communities have access to the Internet at a reasonable cost.

My question is are the public school system, willing to change the rules and regulations that prevents the manipulation of text into its various formats?

Nancy, I think you’ve nailed the book/ebook issue here.

In the short term, I share your scepticism for the reasons you cited.  My hope is that the implementation of etextbooks now will lay the groundwork now for someone to properly liberalize the space in future.

Please not let’s get gushy about all things technical.

Whether textbooks, computers, dream-writers, Smart boards etc. are all considered to be “tools” that teachers use to help students get the education they deserve.

Or so we’ve been told MORE than a few times.

At the end of the day those “tools” still will not be the answer to fix what ails the public system. Teacher competence, quality coupled with proven programs and methodology.

In a perfect world, we should be able to strip away all of those “tools” the educrats tell us that we can’t live without and have an effective educator, correct?

Amen Chuck-perfectly stated!

Rachel,

We have blogged a few times about Geoffry Canada and charter schools.  See:

/index.php/blog/read/it-can-be-done/