The model for our current school system was the schools put in place by the Germans after their defeat by Napoleon.  They were specifically designed to ‘produce’ soldiers - regimented citizens who would follow instructions, show up on time, etc - and they had amazing success.  Ryerson visited Germany and brought back their system to Canada.

Since then schools have been tweaked to produce punctual factory workers (with guidance from Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie) and other variants of standardized, literate, engaged, liberal, obedient, multicultural, numeric, queue-forming, homogenous citizens. 

On the dark side, these efficient school-factories were used to extinguish native cultures - here in Canada, Ryerson was the architect of our horrific residential school system.

Modern schools have always been a production line, with a specific final product in mind.  Zandor Sherman provides an excellent history:
http://www.thecuriosityofschool.com/

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

The primary goals of schools ought to rest on two pillars, excellence and equity.

There should be no sacrifice of one for the other. Poor kids and other oppressed groups can, over time be brought to the level of middle class kids but equality of outcome not equality of opportunity should be the goal. We need to think “if the outcome was not equal then we must not have given those behind enough opportunity.”

At this point we do everything we can think of to raise the lagging groups, smaller classes, better trained more educated teachers, earlier starts with ECE, summer and after school programs, more resources.

At exactly the same time we should aim to displace Finland, Korea, and all other nations and leave them in the dust because it is the nations with the highest scoring poor children that are judged to have the best systems by PISA.

Students must have basic skills AND creative thinking skills.

In the end we need to invest billions more dollars to accomplish this but it is well worth it since it advances our society so far and makes it the world model.

Hi Doug,

I think you missed the question.  It wasn’t how well we should teach, or how much inequality we might tolerate.  Of course resources should be unlimited.  But I believe Malkin’s question was more basic - WHY are they in school, what do we want our schools to produce? 

For example, do we simply want students who are on average more literate and numerate than their counterparts in the US?    Our current model has served us well in this regard, so far.

Do we want to prepare kids for the jobs at graduation in the global economy?  Maybe we should replace French Immersion with Mandarin, replace handwriting with keyboarding, etc.

Do we want schools to be our melting pot?  Almost 20% of Canadians were not born here, and maybe inculcating ‘Canadian Values’ is the core mission of schools.

Do we want to create life-long independent learners (my #1 hope)?  Then we should be helping students master on-line courses and the library, and teach them how to assess their own knowledge gaps. 

Do we want to foster passion and devotion to personal goals (my #2 hope)?  Then we need to help students break out of social conformity and find their own ‘10,000 hour’ paths.

Malkin, you asked a general question, I will provide a basic answer as to the ranking of goals. This is from my perspective but irrespective of teaching experience or milieu:

1) Integration of children from all walks of life, resulting in a cohesive society-when one enters the academy doors,everyone should be on the same playing field
2)High academic achievement-every school should have this as their mandate and culture
3) Mental and physical fitness- two longstanding prime components that help to shape mankind. All students should be challenged and realize the parameters to be reached
4) Moral and spiritual guidance-modelled by teachers and administration within these connotate but not to the extent of undue prudishness and/or zealotry
5) Cultivation of leadership ability-every student within school curriculum and offered extracurriculars should have the opportunity to be set up for success given ones’ talents and exposure
6) Development of global citizens-highly dependent on the impact of that school on the given student
7) Career preparation-every secondary school that I have worked in have had extensive co-op programs,exposing students to real-time work experience in various verticals. Also, the guidance departments are very well attuned to the likelihood of success in most post-secondary programs. Best prepared group in the educational circle!
8) Babysitting for as many days and hours as possible-huh??!! (not me!)

I’m just merely ranking these goals as I have been a part of various school missions in the public system over many years. I am happy to say that, from my experience, the public system has served these checkpoints quite well!

Steve’s comments reveal that I didn’t explain myself clearly enough - so I will explain some more.

When I talk about what schools’ top priority should be, I’m not thinking in terms of ranking a bunch of goals. I’m thinking in terms of one over-riding priority that informs everything a school does. Schools that have a bunch of priorities, all considered important, are bound to be wishy-washy, because just about any activity can be assigned to some priority - meaning that some goals can easily get lost in the shuffle and there is no strong unifying culture in the school.

Let’s say a school has the primary goal of strong academic achievement. In this scenario, all of the participants - administration, teachers, parents, students - are well aware of this priority. Ideally, everything involved has chosen this school on the grounds that its primary goal is strong academic achievement and they are all on board.

As a result, every available moment is used to drive towards strong academic achievement. Clear goals are set and the extent of their achievement is measured and fed back. No school time is wasted. Teachers use methods and materials that have been proven most effective for raising students’ academic skills and knowledge. Assemblies are used sparingly and are short. Transitions are quick. School trips are judiciously chosen, Even lunch times are utilized, perhaps with classical music or book reading. The curriculum is specific and sequential, teachers are very clear about the curriculum they are expected to teach, and students are aware that they must work hard and master the curriculum. Absentee students are able to and are expected to make up lost work. Good academic results are publicized and applauded.

This is a thumbnail sketch of a school that is dedicated to strong academic achievement. A school with a different priority - say integration of children from all walks of life - would be very different. Perhaps there would be lots of mixers, group activities of various sorts, assemblies, reading buddies, stuff like that.

The point is: schools are more likely to reach their goal if everyone involved knows the destination and believes strongly in the importance of reaching it.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

Every single school should have academic achievement as its primary goal. We should not let 1000 flowers bloom. That is chaos.

At KIPP schools, the primary goal seems to be self-discipline and character development, every interaction and every lesson is infused with those elements.  The most important grades that a student gets are on the ‘Character Report Card’.

The theory seems to be that if you focus on character development, then excellence naturally follows (in academics and everything else).

In ‘How Children Succeed’, Paul Tough visits KIPP Infinity (a charter middle-school tucked into one floor of the Roberto Clemente Middle School on West 133rd Street, NYC).  The following paragraph shows one of the techniques being used:

“One example was SLANT, a set of classroom habits that KIPP students were drilled on at the beginning of fifth grade, their first year at KIPP.  SLANT, which stands for Sit up, Listen, Ask questions, Nod, and Track the speaker with your eyes, is a useful way to teach code-switching, the ability, highly prized at KIPP and at many other low-income urban schools, to recognize and accurately perform the behaviors appropriate to each different cultural setting. It’s okay to be street on the street, according to the theory of code-switching, but if you’re in a museum or a college interview or a nice restaurant, you need to know exactly how to act or you’re going to miss out on important opportunities. “At KIPP, we are teaching the professional code of behavior, the college code of behavior, the cultural-dominant code of behavior, and we have to teach that every moment of the day.”

This seems to reflect specific needs of the community that this school serves.  It wouldn’t work a few block over towards the Upper East Side.  But I’ll bet it works much better than whatever they are doing one floor down.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

Everybody that runs a private school knows the formula although all deny using it. KIPP is no different.

You can look at an apartment building in Harlem for example and half the people are still trying very hard while half have kinda given up. The trick is to attract the first half repel the second half and then claim to be doing miracles.

Dave Levin recognized this as does Goeffrey Canada. So how is is done. It appears to be a lottery but only the motivated families put their names forth. If by some chance an unmotivated student or LD student or behavioural student gets past the first defence you simply find other ways to get rid of them in the near future. Expulsions if needed. Canada expelled an entire class.

When this is acconplished, you tout your higher scores and demand money from higher ups who see some black faces from a poor neighbourhood succeeding.

You become heros to some and pay your top people much better and your teachers much less than the going rate. This only works in a teacher surplus market. Most teacher jump at the chance to leave these places for public schools with decent salaries pensions and benefits.

Doug, who I think it is safe to say has a leftist orientation and is a champion of the status quo, says that every single school should have academic achievement as its primary goal.

However, I doubt that Doug would claim that many, if any, Ontario public schools do have academic achievement as their primary goal. After all, if they did, they would all be driving hard towards academic learning, in the ways set out in my comment on the 19th, and they are demonstrably not.

This raises a couple of questions in my mind.

Do most Ontario status quo educators think that academic achievement should be schools’ primary goal?

If they do, do they think that academic achievement IS most Ontario schools’ primary goal?

And if they think that academic achievement should be most Ontario schools’ primary goal but is not, then why aren’t they doing something about it?

Let me accept Doug’s statements about KIPP at face value (ie: I don’t know if they are true, but they make an interesting narrative).

In his telling, there are two types of families - one ‘trying very hard’ and the other having given up.  This is a gross simplification of course, but let’s assume Doug is broadly right.

KIPP’s ‘specialization’ is to help the children of motivated parents escape from the cycle of urban poverty.  In Doug’s telling, this is done with ruthless Darwinism, those that aren’t keeping up get thrown under the bus.

Frankly, I can’t see much wrong with that.  If I agree with every point that Doug makes, then I come to the opposite conclusion from the same facts.

I am not suggesting that public schools don’t work hard at breaking the poverty cycle, and it is obvious that KIPP is not a solution that works for a whole school board.  But what’s wrong with these narrow, focused specializations?  Who is so grievously harmed by the success of the highest-potential ghetto kids?

And, what is the PURPOSE of the school that deals with Doug’s ‘no-hope’ category?  What should it be? 

I’m as ‘left’ as Doug, perhaps even further. But I am increasingly convinced that progressives have been very wrong on public education, and that our current delivery model serves the elites at the expense of the poor.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

At first I take some unbridge at the tone of Status Quo educator, If there is anything I am not it is status quo which I understand is simply American Reform spin for everyone outside their camp.

I advocate:

Abolishing EQAO
Abolishing catholic education
taxing private education
about $4B more for public education to lower class sizes further expand ADK deeper and faster
free tuition
phasing out streaming
MA degrees for teachers and significant pay increases to attract the best and brightest

Nevertheless; the teachers and support staff working with the meagre resources they have created a model system that attracts Americans and people around the world to see the highest achieving system in the English speaking world.

It could be better with the list above.

Status Quo ? I think not.

To Tom, the purpose of public education is not to cream and raise up a few but to raise up all children. Creaming, what KIPP and similar are doing makes the role of public schools who retain 90% of the students even more difficult.

Tom read more deeply about the reform project. Privatize all education in order to make super profits for billionaires. Nothing more.

Oh Doug, you are SUCH an internet troll.  You had me going for a moment, I was wondering when Maoism had come back into fashion.

I’ll skip your humor and focus on the interesting statement:  “The purpose of public education is to raise up all children. Creaming makes it more difficult.”

Let me agree with the first part - raising all children.  I don’t think you are making the ‘Equality of Outcome’ argument that Nancy made on this blog a few days ago.  That tends to spiral into the black politics of envy - pulling down those with more rather than raising those with less.  At best, it can serve as a post-hoc measure of ‘Equality of Opportunity’ - that after we factor out personal choices that explain differential outcomes then what is left is due to differential opportunity.  So with that flag, I’m with you.

Yes, let’s raise all children.  Still, what are we talking about?  Literacy?  Life skills?  Social skills?  College readiness? Job readiness?  Happiness?  KIPP’s ‘Character Development’?  Maybe it’s not the same answer for every student.

And why would creaming make it more difficult?  Turn that idea around - assume we pulled the WORST students out of the classroom by category, and put them into specialized charter schools - learning disabilities into one, substance abusers into another, etc.  Maybe an imaginary school for truants.

Freed from the dead hand of our centralized one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, would these schools evolve specialist skills and intense intervention processes to help these students?  I think they mostly would, and the children would benefit greatly.  Not always, some schools would fail.  But even we old socialist warhorses have accepted Adam Smith.

I concede that there exists research showing that the presence of better students in a classroom raises the performance of the poorer students.  That effect is small, involves students who are mostly similar, so I’m not sure it is relevant for this discussion.  But even if it were, social justice does not justify pulling these students down to help the others (the equality-of-outcome argument).

In the meantime, you had me whistling the Marseillaise and humming tunes from our glorious war against Franco.  Thank you.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

Dear Tom,

None of the leading education jurisdictions of the world use a creaming system to raise up their low achieving populations. I consider most charter operators to be fly-by-night fast-buck frauds. Google charter school fraud and the supply is literally endless, you will be shocked. They manupulate figures, expel difficult students (ELL, LD, behaviourl) as major heavy reform hitter Rick hess says “they over promise and under deliver” The charter school movement itself is asking politicians to slow down because they are up to their backsides in fraud.

The NAACP opposes most of this vouchers and most charters for a reason. Michelle Rhee looked the other way when presented with the evidence of mass cheating in DC, the CREDO study shown no advantage to charters,

Do any of the leading nations take this reform direction seriously? No, only the USA and UK. Sweden now has deep internal conflicts over its direction chosen years ago.

The best policy for poor kids overall is compensatory education, smaller classes, ADK, hand picked principals all for poor schools only or skewed towards them.

The Americans are in a panic. 100 years of severe equality is coming home to roost. No other society tolerates that level of inequality. The educational implications of that are staggering. They don’t really want to pay the price in taxes to easily eliminate poverty so they want to turn the schools over to billionaires that know nothing about education like Bill Gates.

Stupid stupid stupid but nobody can tell them they will just have to fall on their face.

I’m onto you Doug, you are trolling.  That post was a combination of a straw man, irrelevant facts, made-up-facts, outright manipulations, and change-the-subject.

The straw man is fraud in the American education system.  They have fraud in their Medicare system too, but we like our socialized medicine.  (Hmm, why wouldn’t we fund schools the way we do medicine - pick your own school and send the bill to the government.)

One of the irrelevant facts is charter schools in countries that are not comparable to us (the percentage of poor readers in Japan is only 0.5%, but their education system is irrelevant in the discussion of improving ours). 

One of the made-up-facts is the countries that use charters, you should to include other English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

One of the outright manipulations was regarding Michelle Rhee’s tenure in Washington - it was the public school system that was cheating.

And of course, this posting addresses the PURPOSE of schools, and you keep moving away from that. You are simply trolling this blog.  Blech.

Quite the back and forth debate and yet all circular arguments that always ends up back to the solutions being pushed.

Why is it whatever the primary orientation of schools are, and there is many different models and purposes of schools, the focus remains on the solutions, that are doomed to repeat the outcomes based on social-income status of the parents.

Take for example in Doug’s last post - “. The best policy for poor kids overall is compensatory education, smaller classes, ADK, hand picked principals all for poor schools only or skewed towards them.”

It implies that poor kids are not in possession of the same biological and physical features as other kids with higher income. Doug’s solution of compensatory education bears a further look. In Wikipedia - ” Poor children do worse in school than their well-off peers. They are more likely to experience learning disabilities and developmental delays.[3] Poor children score between 6 and 13 points lower on various standardized tests of IQ, verbal ability, and achievement….....”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensatory_education.

Now to further confound schools and their primary mission in the 21st century of whatever they might be, are the social class and power theories imposed upon a increasingly complex society of the 21st century.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551478/social-structure/222952/Theories-of-class-and-power

Its the social structure of schools that plays a pivoted role in the schools of the 21st century, in shaping and influencing all aspects of schools, and not just the mandated goals of the schools.

Doug is waging his battles on the pulpit of the classic class war struggles. An education is all about providing an education based on imposing a set of selected middle-class values that the dominate powers would like the poor kids to have.

Whatever happen to providing all kids a solid foundation in the basics regardless of income?  Going by the social-income status of students and parents has been the standard that has been set since the creation of the modern day education system. However the goals have always been set by the governing powers of the upper elite composed of a mix of professionals and wealth, imposing their set of values upon the people with less social and income status.

In 2013, kids are seen first through the lens of their social-income status, resulting in education according to their social-income status. No wonder kids of any income who struggled in learning, have many difficulties when they want to rise above their learning difficulties, to wanting something more than what the political powers are willing to give.

In Doug’s version, he would do it at the expense of the education of the middle-income kids. Hence, a class war of pitting middle-class kids versus low-income students begins. Over in merry old England, “Mr Milburn, a former Labour Cabinet minister, was being quizzed by MPs prior to his appointment as head of a new social mobility commission being set up by the Coalition.
He went on to call for every child to be labelled according to their parents’ social class and tracked from nursery to employment as part of moves to close the gap between rich and poor.
They should be divided into ten groups based on their parents’ wealth and monitored throughout their education.
This would be more finely-grained than simply splitting pupils into those on free school meals and those not, as currently happens for many targets.
‘There are also a bunch of kids in private schools who would be entitled to free school meals because of bursaries and sponsorship etc’ he said.
‘We need a single set of indicators. We need to be able to track in my view an individual pupil from between starting school, getting into school, what happens about their progress in school, where they go to once they leave school, and post-university as well.’
In his current role as social mobility adviser, Mr Milburn will shortly produce a report on universities’ role in boosting social mobility which is expected to call for greater use of contextual data in admissions.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171806/Social-engineering-lead-class-war-Governments-social-mobility-tsar-admits.html

Whatever has happened to providing a solid foundation of the education basics, for which each and every student would have a solid foundation to stand on, no matter their social-income status????

The people who hold the power just don’t want to provide a quality education for one and all, but what they want to provide, is an education according to social and income status of the students and parents.

As for goals - meaningless in the 21st century, since outcomes are measured by the social-income status of the students.

I have left this site for a many months as a personal discipline exercise to see what will percolate as the top notes.

The folks that drive this enterprise continue to miss the big game.  Thus let the bitter foam.

There is a plethora of fabulous and effective teachers out there.  The principals and superintendents who value hockey, volleyball, and any other ball do not   HIRE them!!  oops when real educators do somehow make it into the ranks they do not get the timetables that matter.

So when Johnny or Jenny get a real bad math teacher ....check them out—- what they coach and what their real credentials are on OCT find a teacher…......

What to do——separate education from coaching that will eradicate most the teachers that your blog discusses.

I like Mirka’s posting a lot, because it lets me identify what I believe to be “the big game”.

There are lots of things wrong with the delivery of education in Ontario. As Mirka says, good teachers are not put to good use or honoured or even hired in the first place in some cases. But there are other serious problems. My own #1 burr under my saddle is that beginning readers are not taught properly, meaning that something like half of them never become fluent readers and thus never get in a position to learn properly. Imagine a manufacturer maiming half of its product right at the beginning of the assembly line! Other people would talk of problems with rampant bullying or lack of attention to special education students or poor math teaching or paucity of money reaching the classroom.

All of these problems - and more - exist in abundance, despite the fact that if a Martian were to come to Earth and take a look at them, he or she would clearly see that they are ridiculous. I mean, everybody, including educators, can agree that good teachers are important and should be used to best advantage. So why are the fabulous teachers being ignored? Why is this problem - and the others - so entrenched that even the most determined efforts can’t make a dint?

The answer, in my opinion, is embedded in this week’s topic of discussion - namely, what is the end of education? The comments so far have skirted this topic, perhaps thinking it only of academic interest. I disagree.

If everybody in a given school agreed with and was full throttle working towards one specific goal - let’s say hockey prowess - then the teachers would be hired and placed on the basis of how good they are at developing the students’ hockey skills. There would be no bullying, since that would interfere with team spirit. The special education students (kids who had trouble with slapshots or skating backwards) would receive remedial teaching. And so on.

Right now, we have a situation in Ontario whereby schools are trying to be all things to all people, with dozens of missions - meaning that they wind up doing none of them well. I ask again, what do YOU think schools’ number one mission ought to be.

I propose to let this thread continue for a few days in the hopes that some readers will answer my question!

Below are the five suggestions on “The Purpose of Education” from the 1994 Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (page 75).  It seems like a sensible document, although I’ve only skimmed it so far.  I am in full agreement with their five suggestions.

The last sentence echos Malkin’s advice on the central importance of this list.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/abcs/rcom/full/royalcommission.pdf

Intellectual development: 

Ensure high-level literacies, beginning with basic reading and writing skills, leading to increasing knowledge, intellectual understanding, problem-solving skills, and critical thinking in a wide range
of subjects;

Learning to learn: 

Foster a love of learning as the foundation for continuous lifelong learning, by nurturing the natural curiosity of students;

Citizenship:

Prepare young people to participate in and contribute to life in a modern, diverse, and democratic society, and to respond knowledgeably, flexibly, and appropriately to changing social conditions, from the local to the more global level;

Preparation for work/career development:

Prepare students for the transition from adolescence to adulthood, and from school to employment
(meant as “general employability” rather than specific training);

Instilling values:

Support and instill cultural, moral, and/or spiritual values. Personal and interpersonal values such as non-violence, anti-racism, honesty, and justice, individual responsibility, and service to the community are basic ones our society upholds.

These purposes must be pursued within a safe, supportive environment for students, which values and supports diversity of race, culture, class, gender, and physical or intellectual ability.

We believe that school organization, staffing, and curriculum should be organized around these identified purposes, and accountability mechanisms should also flow from acceptance of these as the key purposes of the school system.

And now to throw some kerosene on the fire.  I believe the central principle of our current education system is something called “Excellence and Equity”. 

Doug alluded to it earlier, and I am familiar with it from my grad studies.  Here’s what Ben Levin had to say:

“The focus on equity arises from a growing awareness that our schools and communities are increasingly diverse in their populations.  Educators everywhere are presented with the challenge of ensuring that the diversity of their school population is welcomed, explored, celebrated and managed effectively. As well, schools need to demonstrate to the larger society that diversity works in terms of human interaction and dynamics – that it enriches communities and strengthens identity…. 
 
The central problem for schools is that student achievement has always been systematically related to characteristics that have little or nothing to do with a student’s ability or motivation. Whether rich or poor, Aboriginal or not, black or white, born here or elsewhere, male or female, and with most disabilities, students have roughly equal amounts of talent and skill, and roughly equal desires for a good education and its benefits. If this is the case, then school outcomes should not be systematically related to these characteristics.”

Levin, B., Mattingley, R., & Glaze, A. (2011) Breaking barriers: Excellence and equity for all.

————————-

Levin describes a situation that offends our sense of fairness.  But “Equity” is not in the five goals of the Royal Commission, and setting it as a goal places schools in the position of trying to solve deeply intractable problems.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

1) Poor and some racial minority children have generally speaking, an equal opportunity based on inate intelligence and internal motivation.

2) By the first day of school long before the school system has had any chance to influence their academic ability, poor students arrive first day of kindergarten with, for example half the vocabulary of middle class kids. MC kids roughly 1000 words poor kids roughly 500 words. After school begins, this gap seldom narrows and in too many cases actually widens. As a % of vocabulary the gap narrows but in absolute numbers only narrows for some students.

3) David Berliner has isolated the primary AMERICAN reasons for the initial gap and the later struggle to close it.

Low birth weight is huge for later learning problems
Nutrition is huge and poor are often undernourished
Vision and dental problems seldom addressed in a timely way if at all.
Single parent families far more often struggling with work leading to “latchkey” children
Housing density with other poor people where problems compound themselves. Poor people living in high density poverty do much worse than poor kids in low density poverty (OECD PISA)
Transportation problems and frequent moves meaning often ‘the new kid’.
Lack of a proper environment to study
exposure to the newest hired or least qualified teachers
Lack of curriculum that reflects the kids background
Lack of succdessful role models
Lead paint


The list is not complete

4) The point of a high quality education is to eliminate as many of these barriers as possible
5) The rest of society needs to eliminate the rest of the barriers before the schools have any hope for success

6) Other more successful nations in PISA and other indicators have FAR less poverty to begin with and does far more to address it.

The best way to address it is:

much earlier high quality ECE not necessarily available beyond the poor
much smaller classes in poor schools
methods to encourage much more experienced qualified teachers to teach in priority schools
same with administration
many more wrap around services
health clinics within schools to address vision, dental and nutrition issues
free meals breakfast and lunch to address nutrition and take food pressure and food security off the shoulders of poor families
free tuition to encourage poor kids not to be discouraged to continue
an end to standardized testing which has serious harmful demoralizing problems for poor kids

Serious eductors with empathy for the poor understand that this is the education piece of the puzzle

The priorities of the reform movement are at best a waste of time and at worst make the situation worse. None of it is part of the solution.

Who pays?

I went to the poorest school in Windsor, & we wrote standardized tests twice at the end of the year.  I don’t recall if these tests were administered all year or not.  I have absolutely no recollection of stressing out, nor seeing anyone else stressing out.  What stresses children is jumbled math, and the inability to read, bullying, lack of supervision, wasted days on useless field trips, assemblies, meaningless projects, &  being told you’re learning disabled when the problem lies with the system.
The more government is involved, the more inefficiently an institution is run.  What the poor need is choice:  i.e.:  a voucher system. 
Nowadays, if I had children and the luxury of a voucher system, I’d look for a school whose main focus was excellent delivery of the basics through memorization and direct instruction.  Music, art and sports would be second on my list.  Why don’t kindergarten teachers need to know how to play piano nowadays?  Why are children taught how to sing the solfege.  We were taught the solfege and we attended in the poorest school in Windsor.  I’ve digressed but just shows how much government involvement has robbed children and taxpayers.  If we weren’t paying for this mess we call education through high taxation, we’d all have the $$ to send our children to private schools.

Part 1

Malkin - “The answer, in my opinion, is embedded in this week’s topic of discussion - namely, what is the end of education? The comments so far have skirted this topic, perhaps thinking it only of academic interest. I disagree”

Malkin concludes - “Right now, we have a situation in Ontario whereby schools are trying to be all things to all people, with dozens of missions - meaning that they wind up doing none of them well. I ask again, what do YOU think schools’ number one mission ought to be.”

Tom and Doug enters. Tom suggesting equity as missing in action in school goals, and Doug providing a deficit model based on the social-economic status of parents and their children.

Tom’s citation of the paper, Breaking Barriers: Excellence and equity for all - “When policies, practices and interactions are consistent with these beliefs, students from all backgrounds will achieve – often beyond expectations. Thus the approach to equity that we are proposing requires attention to many different aspects of the work of the school over which we have control.”
http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/w/innovation/quest/journals/QuestJournal_BenLevin-AvisGlaze.pdf

The paper is filled with nice sounding words of equity and equality. Thirteen times the word outcomes are mentioned, in the context of fixing the deficits of the students based on the SES variables of the students. “. The true measure of success for schools is not just the level of academic achievement of its students, but the realization of equity of outcomes. By focusing on the issues that accompany diversity and engaging in an intentional approach to close achievement gaps, educators help to ensure a future that delivers on the promise of achieving equity of outcome for all students.”

The papers are a dime a dozen in the education files, and all are based on providing education by the equality of opportunity concept - ” Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

Doug’s model and as well Levin’s paper describing his model fo excellence and equity are essentially providing education services based on the SES variables of the students. The assumption that underlies the concept of equality of opportunities, its up to each individual student to avail of the education opportunities since supposedly all SES barriers have been removed that allows students to achieved in school and to become a productive member in society.

Doug’s model is one based on the income variable, and to which it is based on the deficit model of parents. Meanwhile Levin’s model differs by stressing successful and equitable outcomes for all students by eliminating the barriers by providing equity solutions based on the diversity of the student population.” Nevertheless, both models are based on the equality of opportunity concept, and as such does little to what Malkin has expressed, what is the number one mission for schools.

As Malkin, has aptly expressed - “Right now, we have a situation in Ontario whereby schools are trying to be all things to all people, with dozens of missions - meaning that they wind up doing none of them well.”  On the equality of opportunities line, one will always find schools trying to be all things to all people with dozens upon dozens school missions and goals.

A 2009 report - The Ontario Education Ministry
ONTARIO’S EQUITY AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
STRATEGY

Its where diversity, equity and inclusive education are the main tools to the main mission of the schools and in the case of the Ontario Education Ministry, the three goals are: 1. High levels of student achievement
2. Reduced gaps in student achievement
3. Increased public confidence in publicly funded education
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf

Part 2

One can only conclude, we are now back to square one, and as Malkin has stressed what should be the main goals of schools. In the Ontario paper, I never thought to see one of the goals is to increased public confidence in publicly funded education. I shall assumed at the school level, it translates in practice parental engagement, which fits in nicely with the achievement goals. If so, I would score an A plus being a very engaged parent, into ensuring that the local schools and school board are not constantly undermining my child’s education, and closing her future doors by not providing the corrective remediation in the 3 Rs. No need to, when a laptop and a reader is provided as the equity tool, for students with weaker reading and writing ability. I could go on and on about the inequities that arise from the equality of opportunity model, but here is another paper called, Inequality of Opportunity (my shorter version of the title)
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2341/Public-Education-Criticism.html

Now back to square one again - the question should be in reality, considering what lies behind the goals of education, can we really expect to have a discussion on the priority goals of schools, without a discussion what the priorities of the goals were based on in the first place???

I can’t help thinking that equality of opportunities without equality of outcomes will only increased the number of goals to reach the level of schools being all things to people, and as such, increases the number of inequities that reduces the quality of education for all students. Another way of putting it in a mathematical equation:  the x number of goals +  equity measures = -(number of inequities) + quality of outcomes. Where x is not constant, and shifts according to the SES variables and other factors, that lie outside of the SES factors, such as funding.

Such a real pity – According to the education gurus – equality of outcomes is impossible to achieve, and therefore equality of opportunities is the vehicle that is used to level out outcomes of students. Its rather odd, to explained to a parent that the school cannot provide nor will they guarantee that each and every student will have the essential tools and skills of the education foundational basics that required to access and take advantage of the offerings of education opportunities BUT will provide a potpourri of equity measures and accommodations based on the SES variables of the students, that supposedly meets not only the goals of the schools and their mission statements but as well as the learning needs of the students. Even odder yet, telling a parent if you are not satisfied, there is always the private school down the road, at your expense, which is based on the real events of a father, Mr. Moore and his son. It led to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on November 09, 2012 that equality of outcomes are just as important, and if not a higher importance than equality of opportunities.  Just imagine, it all started with the school not providing the tools and skills in the basic foundation of the 3 Rs, so the Moore boy could take advantage of the educational opportunities in the inclusive classroom.

So what should be the over encompassing goal of schools? Why not one that both respects true equality and equity based both on the principles of equality of opportunities and outcomes.

To work out a definition, one could start with the so-called mission statements and mandates of schools that are so lopsided in favor of the equality of opportunity concept, that outcomes of students are forgotten and lost. Outcomes only seem to rise to the surface, when parents and students are accusing the schools and school boards of unfair treatment and discrimination. After further consideration, perhaps we all should start with the education school acts, that outlines the legal parameters of what constitutes an education. Even in the education acts, effective teachers are not even defined, and as Mirka has expressed - “So when Johnny or Jenny get a real bad math teacher ....check them out—- what they coach and what their real credentials are on OCT find a teacher…...... “ What one will not find anywhere in the education acts what constitutes effective teachers and more importantly what constitutes a quality education.  In my world, my youngest goes without a firm foundation in the 3 Rs, because she did not meet the criteria threshold to qualified for the programs and measures based on the SES variables, but I am told over the years, that the school and the school board are providing at the end, equitable outcomes for one and all students. Crazy eh? 

Bev writes - ” Why are children taught how to sing the solfege.  We were taught the solfege and we attended in the poorest school in Windsor”

I had to looked up the word solfege - my new vocabulary word of the day - In Wikipedia - “In music, solfège (French pronunciation: ​[sɔl.fɛʒ]) or solfeggio (Italian pronunciation: [sɔl.fɛd͡ʒio]) (also called solfeo, sol-fa, solfedge, or solfa) is a singing technique used to teach pitch. Solfège is usually taught during several years of undergraduate university musical study. The goals are to train singers in sight reading and sight singing, to give them more precise pitch, to improve recognition of musical intervals (perfect fifths, minor sixths, etc.), and to strengthen their understanding of music theory. Solfège is a form of solmization, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège

Then I understood, and confirmed I too, was taught solfege among the other things that are no longer taught in the music classes of schools. I ended up teaching it even though I did not know the correct erm to my youngest child to her delight and her cognitive functions were just as delighted. My youngest thought she was a very smart cookie, having a skill that I took for granted, and teachers were equally pleased.

Such a very small thing, and yet so very important in paving the way for enhancing the cognitive functions that enables learning for all children.

As I read the comments, I see that Doug stresses that there is much overlooked poverty in our province, especially among children and teens. He implies that schools, even if “perfect” cannot practise due diligence when there are basic needs not addressed in the lives of many of our poorer students and their families.

Here’s my observation….......completely straying away from Malkin’s question: how is it that in a country as rich as ours, here in Canada, in the richest province, Ontario, run by the government we have had for the last 10 years, we have such unadressed poverty??????

How can we expect a government to address the needs of education if it cannot address other issues that apparently result in such poverty among certain people?

Something somewhere is very wrong. Can we really expect education to be a priority? Can we really expect to compete with other nations that technically are poorer but are managing their systems of education better?

Could it be that much of this has to do with cultural ideology and a work ethic mentality, whereby those with a stronger one (rich or poor) are better able to instruct, guide, and direct their children to appreciate the value of “education”; while those with a weaker attitude (rich or poor) are simply not as capable of making their kids appreciate education? THIS second group, who won’t try hard, and does not take responsibility for their actions (parents of bullies, for eg.) is where the focus needs to be entirely external -  i.e. other people to help, like those capable adults in a SCHOOL.

Unless kids in this sector (raised by those who are not capable or motivated) are genetically predisposed to be self-motivated, they will rely more heavily on external sources outside the home to provide them with the foundation, resources and techniques needed in order to learn.

Hence, school - or education - is usually enhanced, improved upon, or extended (tutoring, extracurriculars, parent provided literature and workbooks) by those parents who care more and are displeased with the ineptitudes government. They will go that extra mile, even if they are poor, to make sure that their kids get some extra help not provided by their school. Throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve the problem. People who care, are capable to seek out answers, and apply new found knowledge solve problems. More money might help them, but they’d get there anyways.

Those who feel they need to do little else for their kids, whether rich or poor, and rely soley on what the government has to offer, are not the only ones whose kids would benefit most from an improved system of education.

But should this system be “improved”, it would still not necessarily benefit the “involved” parents or caregivers. Those would continue to seek alternatives beyond what the government offers as we are all different, with different needs, and beliefs in what would serve our children well.

So differentiation of systems is something that would allow involved parents the choice they want. This could and should be supported by the government, but not administered by them as the changes would be too many to administer well. This would also mandate that “status quo places of education” continually serve the needs of the community. Even within the poor community there are those parents who have high expectations and they would demand the local school be up to a sufficient standard, because now they would have the government paid for option to go elsewhere. Mind you, those who care, would walk the extra mile to the better school - the difference Doug, is not in how much one earns. The difference is in how much we know, what we apply, and what we expect from our future generations. More choice would only open up more options, catering democratically to the needs of those who care, while those who don’t care would benefit anyways.

But to complain about poverty resulting in poor education, here in Canada, holding kids back, is a cop out. Of course kids with full tummies, clean sheets, strong teeth, and good vision do better in life - but why is it that kids in CANADA don’t all have these basic necessities met? How can we expect a government to apply and manage a high standard of eduation if it can’t care properly for all its citizens? If it has mismanaged our economy, spent billions where it shouldn’t have, and continues to spend more on government salaries and needless employees, and yet programs to help the needy are not working, then why would I entrust their ineptitude to design and implement programs teaching my kids? I want my kids to gain proper foundational access to EDUCATION….........which in my belief is the optimal provision of necessary and foundational information that would empower my children and my neighbours’ children to gain the ability to seek AND understand AND be able to apply it in such a way that would be of benefit to their individual and collective futures.

I quit teaching last year because of the nonsense ( some of which appears above).  I used to teach solfege.  It is a straight forward code, like a language code. It was rewarding to teach and it has been useful to know in my personal life.

I am deeply committed to true teaching of information through systematic, faultless instruction.  Profound integrations begin to occur in one’s mind when information is truly learned and memorized systematically and hierarchically. The integration of some concepts cannot be even grasped by those without the prerequisite knowledge base. For instance; there are straight forward, linear connections between the diatonic scale and carpentry - two things that I am very familiar with.  The connection will elude most lay folk, and/or professionals in either field.