|
0 members (),
420
guests, and
40
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 675
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 675 |
That is a mighty good question, Bostonian. And I am disturbed to admit I can't come up with any. And I counted twice. Aquinas, help!
Education is purely provincial jurisdiction here. There is no national law, policy or even a point of contact. So reality varies considerably across provinces, as each sets their own policy, curriculum, assessment, rules for teachers, standards for hiring, etc. School Boards then implement. In our province, Board autonomy was severely reduced about ten years ago; in other provinces, Boards may have a bit more scope for decision-making.
I was so thrown by my complete blank that I had to go surfing, but still found nothing new. There is, of course, provincial law related to education, but I've never seen it referenced in all my research on educational options for my kids - so I suspect it's general enough to not have much impact at the policy level. We have a new provincial education renewal strategy to go with a new government. Lots of warm and fuzzy. No accountability. There IS oodles of policy: I generally find it detailed in the extreme on the nature of process, but scarce on content or outcomes.
For instance, with both gifted and LDs, I have found endless policy and procedure on how to ask for a child to be identified, and the process of producing an IEP, and everybody's rights and responsibilities in these processes. But then? The school/ board must provide "appropriate placement and supports" - the nature of which are entirely discretionary, and no expectations or outcomes are specified. Both my DC's (gifted/ LD) IEPs fundamentally boil down to "the teacher will provide appropriate accommodations and differentiation". Period. With provincial policy heavily invested in inclusion, tracking is anathema, and as Aquinas stated, separate GT classrooms are rapidly going the same way. And many smaller boards never had specialized classrooms for GT or LDs in the first place. (And just to add to the fun and games, while acceleration is theoretically acceptable by the province - under extreme circumstances - most boards flatly refuse under any circumstances. I've never heard of compacting or other strategies occurring around here.) Our board does have one gifted advisor (job vacant most of the last two years), but they are there to help the board and the schools; they don't return phone calls from parents.
In that quintessential Canadian way, we provide almost everybody with pretty OK education. But we don't deal with outliers well. And so deep in the DNA that no one even notices it's there is 'equality', the foundation that makes Canada so wonderful and so frustrating. Somehow, it has morphed into idea that equality means we treat everyone the same, and if we do it right, we will then achieve equality of outcomes. And we truly believe, in every sector I have ever worked in, that the best route to equality is to rein in the outliers on the right, rather than move the curve forward from the left.
Whew! Mostly, I am extraordinarily happy to be Canadian, but I confess some threads on this board just make me drool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4 |
The federal laws mentioned by Bostonian are intended to assist those with learning difficulties reach higher, closing performance/achievement/excellence gaps. Unfortunately some find that closing gaps is more easily attained by capping growth at the top, and schools are measured by their success in closing gaps. Therefore some believe the federal law is driving the pressure to attain equal outcomes. Some believe that having local control provides more opportunity to serve the needs of the local population. The supreme law of the United States is the Constitution, in which " We, the people" specified which powers are granted to the federal government (consisting of 3 branches: Executive, Legislative (bicameral/bipartisan), and Judicial) with all other powers reserved for States and individuals. It has been noted that powers over education were not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, yet a federal Department of Education was created some 35 years ago. The point of which is to say that having or not having a federal law may or may not help gifted kids receive appropriate placement and pacing based on their ability and readiness. the best route to equality is to rein in the outliers on the right, rather than move the curve forward from the left. Unfortunately, this may be occurring on a widespread basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
MichelleC, you're correct. The federal legislation around education in Canada is the Constitution, which devolves jurisdiction over education to the provinces. Bostonian, if you're interested, here's a link to our Constitution Acts. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.htmlAt the provincial level, the governing documents for education are the Education Acts, and most (probably all, I haven't verified) provinces have some form of disability protection act, which derives in combination from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the provincial Human Rights Codes. Amendments and updates to the provincial Education Acts are made through the legislation of policy memoranda. (The right to homeschooling in my province, for example, was introduced through a policy memorandum.) The required provision under the special education provisions in our province is an appropriate education, which is sufficiently vague as to be wantonly manipulated by the ideology of the day in the ministry of education.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
How FRUSTRATING. Two things seem clear: 1) The decisions are being motivated by financial considerations, not pedagogical ones. Any "facts" presented to support their decisions are just window-dressing. 2) The meeting was for show. They never had any intention of taking feedback seriously or straying from their script. Even more frustrating, there is no financial constraint underlying the decision. The provincial budgets have built in elevators for real per capita budgetary growth in education. The motivation behind inclusion is the premier's ideology. The normal chain of command would be: district superintendent of special ed --> managing superintendent of special ed --> district director of education --> provincial education minister --> premier. Sadly, the tone at the top is rotten, and the result is trickle-down of a misguided ideology that seeks to engineer equality of outcome, because feelings of belonging are more important than things like being educated. Short of a provincial referendum on special education practices, this is part of the package that my fellow citizens voted for.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
How FRUSTRATING. Two things seem clear: 1) The decisions are being motivated by financial considerations, not pedagogical ones. Any "facts" presented to support their decisions are just window-dressing. 2) The meeting was for show. They never had any intention of taking feedback seriously or straying from their script. Aquinas, you have my deep, fellow Canuck sympathy, from a region that has already severely cut its congregated classrooms, and continues to claim there is neither need nor demand (but has waiting lists. long waiting lists. Which we are told don't exist. Unless you're on one - but then you are never actually told that you are, since they don't exist.) MegMeg, I wish it was only about money. You can work with financial facts. And frankly, there's no reason for congregated classes to be much more expensive than the regular kinds, at least the way they are delivered around here. But we are dealing with ideology. Inclusion at all costs. Nothing else is equitable. And of course, inclusion is the perfect solution, since there are no costs, for anybody. Internal board "research" says so. Everything is awesome... (Sure they only site one source, and it's a consultant paid by the board. What's your point?) Frankly, it feels a little Orwellian at times: if we say it often enough, it will become true. Because we want it to be. The inclusion philosophy hurts lots of kids - we have huge waiting lists for LD classrooms too, and I was laughed at when I asked if this was an option for DD. But there is an additional, and occasionally rather vicious anti-gifted streak that runs through the mountains of disturbing papers I have managed to unearth from our Board on the discussions about spec ed in our region (gifted is spec ed in Canada). The focus of *all* Board analysis is about out-of-control lobbying parents who are hothousing their kids and demanding special privileges. Privileges that directly take away from deserving, good kids with *real* needs. Gifted is elitist, unnecessary, undeserved, and serves only to feed the egos of parents who already have too much money and privilege. It's not a pretty dynamic. There's very little you can do to promote rational discourse in this environment. Oh dear. That was a bit of a rant. Apparently that sore spot is still a wee bit raw. Apologies for the soap box! Let me get you a taller soap box! 
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
Hi Aquinas. I feel awful for you as the way you, and the other parents, were treated was beyond disrespectful. I wish you every success in starting a school as it becomes increasingly apparent that, all over the world, we have not made huge inroads into achieving acceptance of the issues gifted children face. Recently, on another thread the whole debate on what constitutes giftedness highlights the challenges of defining who is in need. It still comes down to, "you know it when you see it" given the complexities of testing that can miss 2E individuals and those that express giftedness in less measurable ways. Even though we have been 'fortunate' to receive accommodations and grade skips etc, they have only come with hard work, persistence and tears. There is no clear pathway for our children and we each seem to be forging a path in the jungle, cutting through the undergrowth ourselves. It is exhausting. Sometimes a few others can jump on the path behind us before the undergrowth takes over again and the path disappears. Facilities like the Davidson Academy seem dream like to most of us. Maybe you can make the dream come true for some lucky families in Canada. Good luck. Have you seen this article on establishing a school in Canada? I don't know how old it is or anything about its provenance but it seemed like a reasonable starting point for gathering ideas. http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/school_choice/privateschool.pdfNdw, thanks for your commiseration, and for sharing that link with me. My unspoken long-term goal is to build a scalable model of gifted education that can be implemented nationwide. As a pastiche of provinces (and I'm sorry if I offend any other Canadians here), it seems our grand unifying philosophy of education is the institutionalization of mediocrity and the disregard for individualism.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4 |
philosophy of education is the institutionalization of mediocrity and the disregard for individualism. Sadly, same here. Some may say that "individualism" has taken on quite a negative connotation in certain education circles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 381
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 381 |
Hi all,
I don't have the heart to write a detailed response. But I'll offer a report from a purportedly top-notch public elementary school in Northern California. We have NO gifted education. Naively, I joined my school's "site council" thinking I could work on it from within. The Site Council is a team composed of principal, parents and teachers. It develops the key objectives for the school, which must be written in stone, with measurable objectives. We had several academic objectives. For each, I could summarize them as "demonstrate that we have X percent fewer students performing below grade average."
Several of the parents asked, "couldn't we add an objective that each student make one year of academic progress during the school year"? This gives the school incentive to support accelerated kids to some extent at least.
The short answer: no. That's not our mission.
Pretty black and white. Pretty bleak.
OP - You are not alone,
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
: That is a mighty good question, Bostonian. And I am disturbed to admit I can't come up with any. And I counted twice. Aquinas, help!
Education is purely provincial jurisdiction here. There is no national law, policy or even a point of contact. So reality varies considerably across provinces, as each sets their own policy, curriculum, assessment, rules for teachers, standards for hiring, etc. School Boards then implement. In our province, Board autonomy was severely reduced about ten years ago; in other provinces, Boards may have a bit more scope for decision-making.
I was so thrown by my complete blank that I had to go surfing, but still found nothing new. There is, of course, provincial law related to education, but I've never seen it referenced in all my research on educational options for my kids - so I suspect it's general enough to not have much impact at the policy level. We have a new provincial education renewal strategy to go with a new government. Lots of warm and fuzzy. No accountability. There IS oodles of policy: I generally find it detailed in the extreme on the nature of process, but scarce on content or outcomes.
For instance, with both gifted and LDs, I have found endless policy and procedure on how to ask for a child to be identified, and the process of producing an IEP, and everybody's rights and responsibilities in these processes. But then? The school/ board must provide "appropriate placement and supports" - the nature of which are entirely discretionary, and no expectations or outcomes are specified. Both my DC's (gifted/ LD) IEPs fundamentally boil down to "the teacher will provide appropriate accommodations and differentiation". Period. With provincial policy heavily invested in inclusion, tracking is anathema, and as Aquinas stated, separate GT classrooms are rapidly going the same way. And many smaller boards never had specialized classrooms for GT or LDs in the first place. (And just to add to the fun and games, while acceleration is theoretically acceptable by the province - under extreme circumstances - most boards flatly refuse under any circumstances. I've never heard of compacting or other strategies occurring around here.) Our board does have one gifted advisor (job vacant most of the last two years), but they are there to help the board and the schools; they don't return phone calls from parents.
In that quintessential Canadian way, we provide almost everybody with pretty OK education. But we don't deal with outliers well. And so deep in the DNA that no one even notices it's there is 'equality', the foundation that makes Canada so wonderful and so frustrating. Somehow, it has morphed into idea that equality means we treat everyone the same, and if we do it right, we will then achieve equality of outcomes. And we truly believe, in every sector I have ever worked in, that the best route to equality is to rein in the outliers on the right, rather than move the curve forward from the left.
Whew! Mostly, I am extraordinarily happy to be Canadian, but I confess some threads on this board just make me drool. You're not alone. NZ has a lot in common with you except we only have one province. We never got gifted classes so we can't lose them but otherwise it is very familiar. And there are no alternative schools really in most places since nearly all schools receive government funding so teach the national curriculum, employ registered teachers who were trained in government approved courses and belong to the teachers union. It is like the all take the same ideological pill each day. If they don't they are careful enough not to say so. That is my rant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,250 Likes: 4 |
Many families report the same thing... the sham appearance of local control, while things are actually being dictated top-down. The volunteerism of gifted families is heavily leveraged, with parents being misguided by the belief that our investment of time and effort may help afford more opportunity for children to excel. In essence, unsuspecting parents become part of the machine which rubber-stamps approval on policy to further diminish opportunity to excel in public schools.
|
|
|
|
|
