It is constructive to go back into the past, but first the processes of teachers’ discipline. 1. http://www.teachers.ab.ca/About the ATA/Governance/General Bylaws/Pages/Discipline.aspx
2. http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/Other Publications/Teachers Guides/Pages/Maintaining Standards.aspx
3. http://www.teachers.ab.ca/About the ATA/UpholdingProfessionalStandards/ProfessionalConduct/Pages/CodeofProfessionalConduct.aspx

September 12, 2013 - “The Alberta Teachers Association investigating teachers isn’t a conflict of interest, he said, because “proper structures have been put in place” to prevent that.
So far, he said, the ATA “hasn’t received a single complaint.”
Disciplinary hearings, he said, are held in public and their results included in ATA annual reports.
But he couldn’t say if those results were or should be present on the ATA’s website.”
http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/09/12/alberta-school-boards-association-welcomes-provincial-task-force-on-instruction-quality

As far as I can tell, the ATA does not published the disciplinary hearing and outcomes on their website. Another quote from the ATA, and this is how they spell accountability - ““Teachers are under scrutiny on an ongoing basis by parents, other teachers (and) principals,” he said.
“With that in place, teachers have to measure up to teaching quality standards.”  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/05/alberta-teacher-competency_n_5268659.html

On May 26, 2014, - Accusations of conflict of interest and no to a teachers’ college - http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/1045702/decisions-on-alberta-teacher-discipline-alarming-education-minister-jeff-johnson/

On July 03, 2014 apparently the minister of education broke privacy rules - http://globalnews.ca/news/1431195/alberta-education-minister-broke-privacy-rules-with-mass-email-to-teachers/

Wonder how many times have the schools broke the privacy rules for parents. to delivered what some would call spam?  On June 19, 2014 - a blog stating the case of the ATA minus the political rhetoric.
http://socalledcareer.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/who-should-discipline-albertas-teachers/

All I can say, the processes of the ATA and the discipline of teachers needs a lot of work, and at the very least bring it up to 21st century standards where teachers are not fired for handing out zeroes to students.

Malkin,

The education minister should have asked for data on incompetent principals.  Get rid of them - the rest takes care of itself.

Management is the key.

Teachers do not have tenure. They have a right to due process that is all. As a union rep who spent time driving around Ontario defending teachers one would say that managers P+SO need to get off their butts out of their comfortable offices and into classrooms.

They need to make their classroom visits, demonstrate their support for struggling teachers and get their paperwork straight and ducks in a row if they want to fire someone.

I won every one of my cases in a 6 year stint for OSSTF mainly because I knew more about the process than the principals.

BTW in my time on former TBE we fired 15-20 teachers per year. TBE was about 15% of the public system so extrapolate about 100 teachers per year fired not counting separate and French systems.

The reason it is not front page news is because it was done in a quiet respectful way.

One more quick bit Malkin,

These ‘incompetent’ teachers were hired by -wait for it- even more incompetent administrators.

Clean up management - and stand back…..  there is a hunger for excellence both from families and educators.  Get rid of the pygmies.

You continue to not understand how to get the biggest change paradigm in the shortest amount of time. 

Focus on the pygmies.

Principals are a huge part of the problem. As a parent I witnessed it first hand at my child’s FORMER school.
Principals set the tone for the school. I’ve seen this first hand as I witnessed a school go down the tubes in a matter of 3 years due to incompetent management, not holding teachers to task and wishy washy discipline.
As the union rep. mentioned previously, many Principals don’t know the rules and process, plus they are too lazy to go through the lengthy job to fire an incompetent teacher. It takes thorough documentation and many Principals just can’t be bothered. They put up with the poor teachers or “pass the lemon” to another school.
The even more disturbing part is the school boards don’t seem to care. They are very much into mediocrity. The Ministry of Ed. too for that matter.
Parents also need to start stepping up and demanding more.

Well Doug, it might be the structure and the design of the processes that are in need of an update for the 21st century. Ontario now has a teachers’ college, which puts a different light on the situation compared to Alberta. I could not find a comprehensive material on the OSSTF website that spells out what will be or not be, but I did find this - 1. http://www.osstf.on.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=d73cea66-5836-44a8-ab6a-dc0adc6d85a0&MediaID=9709d19c-118a-41b7-8a9f-e542c6ffd001&Filename=who-does-what.pdf&l=English
2. Professional Conduct Guide - http://www.osstf.on.ca/professional-conduct-guidelines
3. On profession boundary issues - http://theteachercandidate.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/boundaries-western-sept2013.pdf

I found what I was looking for. In all places the PDF file called - Union Myths Debunked - In Myth # 2, Myth # 3, Myth # 6 and Myth # 8.  http://www.osstf.on.ca/~/media/Provincial/Documents/Resource Centre - Guidelines and Advice/union-myth.ashx?sc_lang=en-CA

The above should give a little bit more light than what Doug is willing to reveal, and also the fact that once again just like other K to 12 systems, the various parts are quite willing to keep certain parts regarding teachers’ discipline and unprofessional misconduct in the dark corners of the K to 12, away from the prying eyes of the education minister or a member of the public. The union is quite willing to oblige and play the game accordingly.

PS - A fact that Doug denies often that the union plays no role in curriculum. As I discovered surfing through the teachers’ unions websites of Ontario, they are quite proud of being involved in the development of curriculum.

Nancy,

When the Ministry is involved in a review or rewriting of curriculum they ask the federations to send reps to curriculum committees. They not not determine the outcome. They make suggestions.

Principals is just one of the symptoms caused by the design and structures of the regulation regime, legislation education acts and in part the union contracts. The K to 12 is designed with the purpose of keeping control mechanisms at the bottom stakeholders the classroom teachers, the parents and the students. A while back I read a paper in the legal files discussing the design and structures of the K to 12 and the built-in mechanisms designed for the 19th century classroom all at play in the 21st century. It went into detail how 21st century changes in regulations, rules, contracts are put on top of the original K to 12 system without any changes or thought to the original built-in mechanisms of control for classroom teachers, parents and students. Suffice to say, it is no wonder why it is so difficult to get rid of incompetent teachers, because of the layers of complexity without fundamentally changing any of the regulation regime and the education acts that may apply to the issue at hand.

I don’t blame principals in shying away, looking for an easy out and there is plenty of loopholes for the easy way out. It is this layer upon layer of complexity that allows the K to 12 establishment to maintain their social and political capital to served the best interests of the K to 12 establishment, at the expense of the students, parents and communities the K to 12 serves. Along the way, the front-line educators are also expendable depending on the issue. From what I read on the OSSTF website, this is where the union brass stirs into action supposedly to protect teacher members on the pretense of the best interests of the teachers. The union brass is not about to make changes that would close up the loopholes for principals because they like the status-quo of the 19th century design and structure of the K to 12 system.

That said, the legal paper also spent some time on other activities of the union. Curriculum came up as a topic, because the bigger teachers’ unions now have the power to control what will be or not be in areas of curriculum. In the OSSTF files, they are quite pleased in having control and development of social curriculum such as bullying or sex education. As for the other aspects of curriculum, the OSSTF files recommend that teachers get involved in the curriculum committees as a way to move up the ladder in the union and the K to 12 education. That said, it is all about putting the pedagogical footprint upon the curriculum. The more progressive it is, the better for the unions in terms of jobs and members and the complexity of the K to 12 structure will do the rest of the work to keep the ministry of education and the public at bay from ever thinking about changing the structures of the K to 12 to a design for the 21st century that would meet the needs of the students.

OSSTF took the lead on anti bullying before the ministry or the boards had done anything. The ministry was so pleased with the work that they adopted most of OSSTFs direction. OSSTF simply does training and workshops. I was there. The woman in charge was in the next office.

Doug, are you trying to upset the other curriculum developers who are very strong union members and are educators who are not at all shy proudly displaying their names on curriculum they have authored? 

“OSSTF/FEESO produces various curriculum packages and classroom supports for use in Ontario classrooms.
In addition, occasionally there are opportunities for members to apply to writing teams for resources or workshops, or to submit proposals for resources for publication.”  https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/resource-centre/curricular-materials-and-classroom-supports

And here - “As a trade union that establishes policy concerning various social issues, OSSTF/FEESO is uniquely positioned to assist members who wish to access resource materials on current topics of social relevance and so we have begun to solicit and publish Socially-based Curriculum Units developed and field-tested by members, and directly applicable to courses in the Ontario secondary curriculum. The units developed so far are listed in the chart below. Titles with hyperlinks are already accessible; the remainder are being added as they are formatted properly for the website.”
https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/resource-centre/curricular-materials-and-classroom-supports/socially-based-curriculum-units

And here - “Common Threads is the name of OSSTF/FEESO’s international solidarity program which offers members the opportunity to travel abroad and conduct research resulting in the creation of new progressive curriculum on critical issues.”  https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/resource-centre/curricular-materials-and-classroom-supports/common-threads

Many more examples and have not even begun the search in the EFTO website, that for sure will produce a bonanza crop of curriculum being authored by teachers. Doug, the OSSTF does not simply do training and workshops. Curriculum development figures largely in the training and workshops.

Nancy,

I think you need to learn what the Ontario Curriculum actually is before you pontificate.

“THE CURRICULUM is produced by the province. It is a set of documents that say what is to be taught at what grade levels in what units. It is very detailed topic by topic.

At the school level COURSE OUTLINES are written which show inspectors or the public or new teachers how the MOE expectations are to be met.

Teachers when write UNIT PLANS with lesson topics and dates and also LESSON PLANS based on the above.

ALL OTHERS including text book publishers try to produce materials which ALIGN with the PROVINCIAL CURRICULUM in order to sell materials like text books to schools. OSSTF and others are acting like the text book publishers attempting to help teachers produce better lessons. OSSTF does this on a simple cost recovery basis.

“THE CURRICULUM” are the documents produced by the MOE. Everything else is organization of or support of THE CURRICULUM.

Just google

ONTARIO Math curriculum 11 and 12 for example.

This is THE CURRICULUM. Everything else is just support.

Then why does the union websites uses the terms curriculum, curriculum packages, curriculum units, and other curriculum related terms?  Why not just lesson development or some other terms?  Wrapped around the curriculum activities of the bigger teachers’ unions is the language of writing teams, for publication, solicit and published, field-tested, research in the creation of progressive curriculum and other such language related to curriculum. In my mini-search earlier today, I did not encounter any activities in just developing lesson plans that are align to the provincial mandated curriculum.

The teachers’ union is the center of the development and production of curriculum. Whether it is the textbook publishers or the MOE, the union directs and mans the flow of educators directing their union members in collaborating with the publishers, MOE and other related firms connected to the development of curriculum. Earlier today, I came across this - “Curriculum Connections is a federation initiative where members can submit their own curriculum materials for review and publication.  The copyright remains with the author(s) and a modest royalty is paid to them for materials sold.
These materials are copyrighted to your colleagues and sold at a reasonable cost in order that no additional copies are made without the author’s permission.  We ask you to respect the integrity of their work by not photocopying additional materials without paying for them.”

Simple cost recovery basis? Please Doug, I doubt the 2013 winner of the ETFO Curriculum Development Award, is doing it for free! http://www.etfo.ca/MediaRoom/MediaReleases/Pages/Ottawa Teacher Michael Wendler Wins ETFO Curriculum Development Award.aspx

You can call it curriculum all you want. Only the province MOE decides what is taught when. Everything else is support.

Award winners get a lot of recognition. Good for the CV.

Unions and other groups cannot decide to have things taught that are not on the provincial curriculum.

Groups try every year.

Forestry groups want it taught that clear cutting is a good idea.

The Nuke industry wants it taught that nukes are safe and affordable.

The official grade 10 history curriculum supports teaching the Winnipeg General Strike. Federations now produce msterials to support that topic.

Who Governs Public Education?

That is the burning question. Globally, teacher unions seem to belong to one mindset — that it is teacher unions who should govern public education.

They have three objectives: 1) providing for their members the usual union services relating to pay, benefits, job safety & security; 2) influence over policies and management of their industry; 3) retaining their ideal venue (public schools) in support of social change for an egalitarian world. 

It is the second goal — governance — that is now in the process of legal clarification.  [This applies to BC at the moment, but will apply to ROC.]  This will take years to settle.  Meanwhile student education and development will be stunted.  Where is Teach for Canada with their six week training for new teachers?

Teacher union erosion of governmental role in education has been chipped away for decades. When governments start to push back, turmoil erupts.

Even today, glee and rejoicing has erupted with the news that the tough Education Secretary, Michael Gove in the UK, has been moved out of the portfolio.  Strikes by the NUT (National Union of Teachers) had been imminent.

Next door, the Education Minister, Jeff Johnson, has just been effectively muzzled in pursuing his probe into the extent of incompetency in Alberta public schools.  The teacher union made a formal complaint. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Thomson+Here+Education+Minister+Jeff+Johnson+save+face/10022799/story.html

In Saskatchewan, the teacher union seems to be lining up with BC to stage a strike. 

Many point to Finland as a leader in student achievement, a leader in teacher training, a leader in most things educational.  Yet, how many know the true nature of governance in Finland?  This is what their main spokesperson, Pasi Sahlberg, has to relay: 

Pasi was asked the question, “Why aren’t the teachers at the decision-making table?”  Answer:  “There is a saying … that ‘war is too important to be decided by the military people’ and it’s the same with education. I think education is too important to be decided by teachers - and this has nothing to do with undervaluing teachers’ expertise . . . But the broad issues, the big issues, the principles of education should be based on a more balanced view and that’s why I would only have one practitioner in the room and divide this voice more equally to those who are the key stakeholders, (including) parents and the community members.” [The question was out of 10, how many should be teachers?]
http://eltorofulbright.blogspot.com/2013/05/my-interview-with-pasi-sahlberg.html

Here in BC, with our teacher strike, already projected to October, and with the Finance Minister de Jong also now involved and asking:  “Why is it so difficult in this area?”  In answer to de Jong’s question, please go back to the three goals of teacher unions, bearing in mind that it’s the leaders who generally speak.  And be reminded that in the international brotherhood of teacher unions BCTF is not its own boss — global loyalties apply.  (See goals 2 & 3 above.)

Provincial governments govern education. They can delegate much of that to boards. This is somewhat complex in Ontario due to rhe RC system that has some constitutional rights.

Citizens know that unions know that. Naturally unions and others attempt to shape that political power by participation in elections negotiations demonstrations public relations and so on.

BCTF is its own boss. Anything above the provincial level is like the UN, useful but not sovereign.

Even in Ontario OTF is not over the other federations. Quite the reverse.

CTF? Many including BCTF are not even members.

I can only comment on the educational climate out here on the “Left Coast”, but after going through our new “curriculum” being introduced (ha ha) this September, I can most assuredly tell you that this was written by the BCTF executive committees.  The only thing our MOE is in charge of, is implementing it.  Even the policy makers who I have had meetings with and who I have spoken to, call this the BCTF curriculum.  I have also spoken to various members of BCTF committees who have provided direction, “their” research, as well as their 2 cents’ worth in terms of what should even be in the curriculum. It most definitely is coming from a very broad spectrum of what the BCTF wants, which is all about dumbing down our kids.  As an example, there are now more learning outcomes than ever before, giving our teachers even less time to focus on the foundational skills which are so crucial for our kids to learn. 

General consensus here in BC?  It’s crap. That’s C*R*A*P, in case you missed it the first time.

Both Nancy and Tunya have provided ample information here regarding who’s really in charge of our education system.  Throw in the hundreds of “education consultants” which litter our school districts, BCTF and our MOE, and you have a walking talking left wing Shangri la in charge of our education system out here. 

Please don’t make it sound as if our unions aren’t significant here; they are running the show.  Union dogma is interfering with good teaching in our schools.  Need to get back to what works effectively, and this isn’t it.

To add to Tara’s post, just the other day in a respected British publication more evidence of the collusion between teachers’ federations and the biggest education publisher in the world. Canada, United States was mentioned in the article Doug is downplaying the power of the teachers’ federations, and the central role they are playing in curriculum. The teachers’ federations are ensuring that their members will profit in the 21st century, even if it means collaborating with the big education publishers to ensure royalties of copyright protected curriculum content.

The royalties do not show up on any government data spreadsheet, but apparently there is billions to be made according to the global K to 12 education establishment. It all takes place behind the scenes while the progressive educationalists publically denounces the privatization of the public K to 12. Meanwhile, in some backroom the teachers’ federations are meeting up with the big education publishers on the taxpayers’ dime to craft the curriculum that is in keeping to the best interests of the pocketbooks of the educators.

On another note - other profit areas that the K to 12 to post-secondary education establishment are profiting by.  In areas of education agents - http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/326/The-Role-of-Education-Agents-EN.pdf
Just wondering what the percentage of taxpayers’ monies is being spent in Canada, on the fees of education agents and the foreign students?  It is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide.  http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/new-training-professionalise-education-agents-industry

It hardly seems fair, when the mobility of Canadian students at the K to 12 level, are severely restricted to the neighbourhood schools. Foreign students are given the red carpet treatment. 

What about copyright and royalties?  It is a rather complex file to understand. An NEA article published sometime around 2010 - http://www.nea.org/home/37583.htm

And here - An academic paper - (2013) - Voracious Appetite of Online Teaching: Examining
Labour Issues Related to K-12 Online Learning
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=ced_fac

Copyrights and royalties is largely an unnoticed activity of the unions by the public. The teachers’ unions are actively working to insert copyrights and royalties framework in the contracts for their teacher members. But first sort out the legal problems in the complex law of copyright, as the last link has outlined.

The lack of understanding from the vociferous contributors to this blog is astonishing.

Curriculum is in the hands of the ministry of education.  The resources and the quality of teachers that deliver it is in the hands of trustees and superintendents. 

Teachers deliver the crap that is dolled out by the provincial leadership - including the textbooks. 

The crappy teachers that many of us encounter are dolled out by the regional leadership. 

management - the pygmies- are the issue.

Momnipotent, what is really astonishing are the barriers erected by the K to 12 education establishment across the span, that prevents students from accessing the curriculum and resources of the school and district. At the school level, it clearly shows when the educators remain silent while they hand out another excuse to the parent or student. Spend some time in the curriculum files Momnipotent and you will find the teacher federation members knee-deep in crafting curriculum to collect the royalties.

On another note, the teacher federations usually have curriculum and resources along with small class sizes as issues that they are focusing on. What the teacher federations do not want to talk about is the actual content of the curriculum and how the resources are used in the schools. However, they would like the public to focus on the lack of resources that is available at the local schools and have the public point the finger at the MOE demanding more money.

Nancy,

please provide evidence that ” teacher federations have curriculum and resources” as issues that they are focusing on.

Your passion and focus are both sadly misdirected.

There is no K-12 establishment that you speak of - it is the same as saying that all the animals in Africa are the same….........  for you not to understand the differentials is why you were when advocating for your own children, by your own repeated admission - ineffective.   

Nancy and Tanya kinda go for conspiracy theories which serious undermines their argument.

momnipotent,

You ask for evidence about teacher federations focusing their sights on curriculum design…if you read my post above Nancy’s, I believe I have given evidence of which you are asking for.  Out here in BC, I have spoken to those MOE representatives who are designing our new curriculum.  I have also spoken to various committee members who have taken part in designing the curriculum.  Guess what? They are being designed by BCTF committees, and these members are also providing “evidence” as to why they need to spend millions of dollars to change a curriculum which is beyond weak and watered down.  I know; I have read through the new draft and it is junk.  I have also read their supposed “research” they have used to formulate the new math section of the curriculum and it’s laughable in content. Not one study was empirical or quantitative, nor was their any “scientific evidence” to show why their methods were effective.  Mostly these studies were point of view articles, or studies based on personal “observations” in the classroom.  It’s hard to believe these people should be taken seriously.

I was also a community member 2 years ago providing feedback for our new curriculum.  Guess what?  The agenda was already set which had been formulated by the BCTF and their committees. I can tell you that not one part of our input ever made it to their redesign.  Probably because they asked parents, trustees, school officials and community leaders for feedback.  Perhaps they didn’t like what we had to say, or perhaps we were completely out of line with what the BCTF and their consultants (with a long list of textbook companies in their pocket) wanted to hear.

In any event, BC will be rolling out the worst curriculum design it has seen in a yonks age and our kids will be heading to Kumon in droves.  Our local teacher’s association was asked to try and teach parts of the new curriculum as a test pilot a few months back.  They took one look at it and said no way, and they refused.  Don’t believe me?  Let me know and I’ll be happy to share my experiences with you. 

In the meantime, naivety will not work in your favour here.  Of course there’s a K-12 establishment flourishing…why else are we advocating for this to be recognized and dealt with?  In this province, now more than ever is the need for the BCTF to be called upon what it is trying to accomplish:  completely take control of the curriculum and resources out of the hands of the MOE.  This is wrong.  Their job is to provide good teachers in the classroom.  Leave the content and curriculum guidelines up to their employer.  I have seen this transformation occur in my children’s school, and the power with which the BCTF wields over its members and all other members of our education establishment is astounding.  It’s truly sad, as I do believe the majority of teachers that I know and have run across, are not being represented by the few who head their union.  So let’s call a spade a spade, and get our head out of the sand.  This is a very real phenomenon and it’s not going away anytime soon.

PS And in response to the textbooks being dolled out by the MOE’s, you are wrong about that.  It’s actually up to each individual school district to determine which textbooks are to be used in their schools.  I can only highlight those being used for arithmetic and mathematics here in BC.  And currently most of the education consultants being employed by the school districts like using the much hated “Math Makes Sense ” textbook.  Why?  Because they are all about problem solving and not much conventional methods are actually highlighted in this textbook.  General ed teachers love Math Makes Sense, while all Math teachers with a background in Mathematics, hate using it.  Many districts have told their schools (actually they forbid their schools) that they CANNOT use the highly successful JUMP Math resource, or Saxon Math,.  Because the District consultants are busy pushing their own brand of textbooks to sell.  This has absolutely no reflection on the MOE; it’s up to the individual districts. So if you want to squawk about that, call your superintendent to complain.

In my second last post - on page 7 - “One exception to this model is School District No. 40 (New Westminster) in British
Columbia. With regards to copyright, the collective agreement that this district signed with its
local teachers union specifically stated:
Article D33 COPYRIGHT
D33.1 The ownership of and copyright to educational materials such as: teaching aids, films, outlines, notes, manuals, apparatus, which have been designed, written or constructed by teachers with materials, with funds, and/or technical or clerical assistance provided by the Board, is vested in the Board. If a teacher wishes, he/she may discuss details with the Board and an agreement will be reached to
give copyrights to a teacher on the following conditions:
D33.1.1 that the Board retains the right in perpetuity and without penalty to use these strategies/materials and/or alter these strategies/materials for their use but not for the purpose of profit; and D33.1.2 the Board may require that 10% of all royalties paid to, for or on behalf of the author, following such release of copyright by the Board to him/her, be repaid, retained or paid to the Board to defray the Board’s costs of their development. (British Columbia Teachers Federation, 2006, p. 78)”
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=ced_fac

My my the K to 12 establishment are the various components and sub-systems of the K to 12 education system model. The components and sub-systems do not operate as singular silos where the actions of one does not affect the other components and sub-systems. If you care to leave the K to 12 files, and move into the copyright files and royalties one will find more than enough to give anyone pause what exactly are the K to 12 establishment on the local, provincial, national and globally up to? Copyright protected curriculum and lessons is a multi-billion dollar industry globally. One thing has become clear, the teachers’ federations are very anxious to insert copyright clauses for their members along with a royalty scheme. As for the legality, the law is not very clear on copyright legislation and hence the urgency for unions to get copyright protection inserted into the contracts. There is also the question if it is legal for teachers to sell lessons online, as a private side business. 

The education publishers are quite open about discussing copyright and royalties compared to the K to 12 establishment. In the K to 12 establishment, it is behind the curtains and out of sight from the public’s eye. In the legal files, the K to 12 is the new frontier for copyright and royalty schemes. Interesting reading can be found there if one has the time to plow through the legal language of complex copyright laws.

I appreciate Tara and Nancy’s responses.  They do make my point.

Nancy’s argument as a response to the challenge to provide evidence for “teacher federations focusing on curriculum and resources” is precious.

In a resource void, where academic leaders -Principals and Superintendents - continue to not to prioritize purchasing text books—- what do they do with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?

IN THIS VOID - caring, intelligent/.educated teachers have developed material to support learning.  They do this after hours at the expense of their own families. The union thinks that this intellectual collateral should be acknowledged and perhaps   VALUED . 

Curriculum in in the hands of the ministry.  Purchasing the materials to support this curriculum is in the hands of the edu-leaders.  Teachers step in and make stupid work and their union defends and protects their contributions.

Curriculum and support material should be taken care of by competent leaders.  The front line workers should have a coherent curriculum with the appropriate textbooks and other resources.

not your fight OQE? 

Tara’s comment is what everyone has to read and understand as the gospel.

They don`t care what works and what helps kids.This doesn`t seem to be the point in Canada.
Jump Math,my guess here even after a large 3 million dollar study shows far superior outcomes than Math Makes Sense or whatever is being used,will still struggle to get on approved lists and be welcomed as a curriculum of choice,

Very simply,don`t expect any change,effectiveness is simply not the decision making factor in Canada`s public education sector.
The U.S. is trying to improve things,they have a chance at large scale adoption across the border.

Momnipotent,
perhaps the Ontario ombudsman’s new powers will allow the public find out where the money goes better than governments and school boards have let on up to now. 

As far as competent leaders go, the Education Act is quite restrictive on who can ‘lead’ in education.  The problem is much more complex than just at the principal/superintendent level (which as it stands works more like who is next in line for the throne )

In SQE’s experience, good principals who go against the status quo and get good results often get the tall poppy syndrome treatment and experience the education equivalent of being “sent to Siberia.”

Doretta,

As an inhabitant of ‘siberia’ I say fight on!

Jo-Anne,

There are, in my view, three big fights in education.  Simple and terrible.  But, happily, do-able if people get their heads out of their asses and stop revisiting   ....30 years ago.

In my view:

1.  AUDIT.  A fully disclosed budget for each school and each school board.  Now here is the key- the disclosed school budgets—department by department will do more to bolster academic excellence than anything else.  HOW much money does each school receive and how does each principal distribute it?  There is Principal in my community that spent serious money for hockey jerseys but has starved the history department of resources…...FULL disclosure to parents would stop him cold . 

2.  Hiring committees and staffing committees at schools to determine the make up of the teaching team (think Finland, think academic excellence).  Teachers will be hired based on academic qualifications and timetables will be allotted based on academic qualifications.  Unions must defend members of the federation even the horrible ones - they do not hire them.  IDIOT principals do.

3. Blowing up the Trillium List.  Resources in the hands of the qualified teaching teams choosing what works based on results.  The Trillium List is holding us back - blow it up!

If Principals are accountable to their communities as their budgets are public and able to be compared to other Principals…..

If teachers are selected based on qualification and ability and then given appropriate time-tables…..

Then there is no need for restrictions such as the Trillium List as the pygmies have been dethroned and the adults are in charge.

Momnipotent, I do not object to the three big fights listed in your post, but what I do object is this statement - ” Simple and terrible.  But, happily, do-able if people get their heads out of their asses and stop revisiting   ....30 years ago.”  One cannot repair, fix it or reform it unless one knows where it has been in the past, in order to plan in the present, so the future is assured. My words, but I am sure there have been better men and women of learned scholarly wisdom that said the same thing in different words. The past of the K to 12 education system is crucial to understand before reform can begin in the Canadian K to 12.

Fifty-four years ago in Ontario, at a time when some students were told to go home, because they were deem uneducable, I was sitting in a grade 1 class. I am a dyslexic but back in 1960, I was just the little girl who didn’t talk. The teachers and a few education dynamos from the school board were going to do the impossible, and teach me the 3 Rs. That they did, along with the other 44 immigrant classmates. I passed grade 1 in the middle of the pack with a solid C + average, and I was speaking.

In 2014, as it still stands the K to 12 establishment are loath to let go of their beliefs and misconceptions of dyslexic students. The vast majority of dyslexic students stay at the bottom of the achievement chart because of the beliefs and misconceptions of the K to 12 educators. Ditto for the other students with lower reading, writing and numeracy skills. My youngest child inherited the dyslexia gene, and no matter what province or territory the public K to 12 - the students with learning difficulties in the 3 Rs are not receiving 21st century teaching techniques and methods because the educators simply do not believe are capable of achieving and some would say, the hard to teach students.

My youngest child would not be having any difficulties if she had received an education like I had in the 1960s. However, she did not due to the beliefs and misconceptions of the education establishment. The past must be acknowledged, then deconstructed and it is vital to cracked open the can of worms - teacher training and pedagogy.

Nancy,

Please stop reliving 30 years ago.  You are on record on this blog repeatedly.  I mean repeatedly!

Your story does not need another post or explanation.  Everyone who has casually or regularly visited this blog -ever - has your story.

Can we get on with the real stuff and leave the   Nancy stuff as something that happened 30 years ago?
 
I think you want to be a positive voice of change - get on with it!

How It Hurts When The Ugly Past Is Recalled !

I started growing uncomfortable with progressive education way before I knew there was a name for it.

When I knew “progressive” and “progressivism” was the code word for a new way of “teaching” — inquiry, project-based, child-centered, discovery, “democratic”, collectivist, constructivist, etc., etc. — that is, not the “traditional” 3Rs style, I started searching for critiques.  There is tons of material on progressive education — for and against.

Probably the most damning was written in 1970 by Ayn Rand.  Her Comprachicos is here: http://www.slideshare.net/crdixon/aynrandthecomprachicos

Why is it important to bring up this critical piece?  BECAUSE, progressivism is still the dominant philosophy, ideology, pedagogy in most public schools, most school systems in the Western World, in most teacher training faculties.

Here are some quotes:

- One of the most evil aspects of modern schools is the spectacle of a thinking child trying to “adjust” to the pack, trying to hide his intelligence (and his scholastic grades) and to act like “one of the boys.”

- The latest research on the subject shows that a child whose early cognitive training has been neglected will never catch up

- The comprachicos of the mind have performed the basic surgery and mangled the wiring—the connections—in his brain.

- The primary goal of a Progressive nursery school is “social adjustment”; this is to be achieved by means of group activities, in which a child is expected to develop both “self-expression’ (in the form of anything he might feel like doing) and conformity to the group.

- John Dewey, the father of modern education (including the Progressive nursery schools), opposed the teaching of theoretical (i.e., conceptual) knowledge, and demanded that it be replaced by concrete, “practical” action, in the form of “class projects” which would develop the students’ social spirit. “The mere absorbing of facts and truths,” he wrote, “is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness.

So much of 21st Century Learning which is being imposed in a number of provinces, most of Common Core “initiatives” in the US, is “progressive” in nature and intent.  A lot of this agenda is self-serving to the producer-side of the equation in public education.  The consumer-side — parents, taxpayers — do not yet see the deliberate dumbing down and make-work nature of the enterprise. 

Yes, this creaking machine called “public education” is due for an overhaul or a “post-public” reality as our education historian, Dr. Thomas Fleming wrote in his book, “Worlds Apart” about our interminable BC School Wars.

Momnipotent or should we just drop the M and get down to the roots of the real word - omnipotent?  I take it adopting the user name of momnipotent, your belief systems run into the all knowing and all powerful? Funny how the modern day search engines can turn up inconvenient evidence on the use of language by the K to 12 establishment.

So, no further ado let us get to the real stuff that the K to 12 education establishment would not like the outsiders to question or even discuss. How about this quote from Dewey - “Teaching school children to read was a “perversion” and high literacy rate bred “the sustaining force behind individualism.”- John Dewey, Educational Psychologist”

That little word omnipotence framed in the terms of the omnipotence of the K to 12 educators, led me to some damning evidence of the rot of the K to 12 system. This is my favourite blog posting, authored by a psychiatrist, entitled - THE EVOLUTION OF EDUCATION INTO INDOCTRINATION - http://drsanity.blogspot.ca/2007/05/evolution-of-education-into.html

And here - http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/the-wednesday-weekly-whacky-award-special-edition/

In the pedagogy files of the educators, one will find omnipotence being used in the narratives where teachers were once the keepers of knowledge, and now the teachers are facilitators and guides of experiences and opportunities for children to learn.

The blog article concludes - “Progressing from education to indoctrination, postmodernism has ushered in an age of educational nihilism that seeks to destroy the minds of the next generation of Americans. The good news is that the biggest impediment to their grandiose plans is that they earlier succeeded in destroying their own minds on the bullshit they now force-feed the children of today.”  So let us get real on the pedagogy, instruction methods and why is it the 21st century educationalists still think as Dewey did, that teaching children reading is a perversion if it leads to high literacy rates.