Why is it that “elected” school board trustees have so much difficulty closing schools that have low enrollments? Is this lack of decision making only an Ontario problem? Or, is it a problem clear across this country? That, in spite of supposedly clearly thought out provincial guidelines on how to conduct a pupil “accommodation review,” few trustees are able to buck what their community and parents seem to want. 

It is a dichotomy for sure. On the one hand, parents don’t want to pay high property and income tax rates. But, on the other, they lobby and lobby hard for all schools to remain open even when the handwriting is on the wall. So, the squeaky wheels do get the grease.

Which means, the more noise the community makes, the more unlikely trustees can rise above the noise and do the right thing. Although in fairness, I should point out that some trustees ARE able to make those types of tough decisions but, when they do so at public meetings, are often booed and jeered by parent groups.

Is that what school board trustees are supposed to do? Aren’t they the ones that are supposed to represent the public and make sure costs and related matters are kept in check? Or, are they there just to do as the various parent and community activists want them to do? Rhetorical questions for sure as I certainly don’t have any answers to those questions. But, let’s look at a couple of examples of this phenomenon.

Read the rest of this entry »

It somehow doesn’t seem appropriate that the Ontario Liberal Party is sending a type of recruitment letter to Ontario teachers, addressed to them personally, not at their home address, but at their school. I know this to be true because my husband received one today. It was titled “Moving Forward Together” and was linked to this website – clearly the official site of the Liberal Party of Ontario. Note also the anti-John Tory messaging.

On the top of page two the letter states:

“That’s why I’m writing you today. You can join your friends and neighbours and help us keep Ontario moving forward by making a donation to the Ontario Liberal Fund. Your tax-creditable contribution of $100, $150, $250 or an amount of your choice will be a sound investment in our province.”

And, then the letter goes on to spin the supposed Liberal accomplishments: “A Healthier Ontario,” “A Stronger Economy,” “Better Education and Training,” “Greener Communities” and “Improved Quality of Life.” It was signed by Bobby Walman, President, Ontario Liberal Fund.

What is going on here? The last time I checked there was freedom of political affiliation in this country. Yet, this type of letter would certainly have a chilling effect. For instance, how free would a teacher feel to talk about John Tory?  While one might be tempted to say, “well, no Ontario teacher is going to talk about John Tory.” That would be wrong because my husband works for a “private” school – a school that receives not a penny of taxpayers money and where many people are openly conservative.  

So, as far as I am concerned, this type of solicitation and wooing of teachers at their place of employment, is totally inappropriate. However, decisions as to whether it is more than that is for other people to decide.

But, what a double standard! Can you just imagine the reaction by teachers and the media if PC leader John Tory sent out a similar letter?

[...]

Step in the Right Direction has put up an update indicating the Globe and Mail has taken on this story. Just shows the power the blogosphere. As I said in my earlier post, the reason the N.B. government is doing so is still more about smoke and mirrors than reality.

[...]  

Recently, we had the Ontario Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynn promoting the latest buzz word in education – EQUITY. As I asked a previous article on that topic, what does that politically charged word actually mean? Well, as it turns out, in New Brunwick it apparently means that if students are doing well academically in an early French immerson program (which affects approximately 20% of students), the government will have to axe their program. Why? Because the rest of the province’s students (the other 80%) are not doing as well. Meaning, that for there to be equity, everyone has to be thrown in together — otherwise the politicians will call it a two-tiered segregated education system.

What absolute nonsense! Read this posting by Spitfire, who is a working on a graduate degree in Ottawa, to get all the details. It is mindboggling but hardly surprising. Spitfire says:

“The problem is the mentality that inequality in education is a bad thing. Why should we lower the bar to the other students and not give the opportunities to excel? While yes, 80% is a large number of students falling behind; however, I suspect that there are other issues, other than this French Immersion program contributing to the problem of NB students coming last in national scores.”

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s time to call a truce on school choice in Ontario, where it is obviously a policy long past due. Not only can it work, it does work — in several other provinces. While I have written posts that support the idea, I have also written posts that question it. And, the ensuing debate has been extensive and helpful. My thanks to everyone who has put so much time and effort into their comments on the topic.

Now, let’s look at this issue of “school choice” realistically. While I can’t study every single province and territory in Canada, I have looked at British Columbia and Alberta. No problems are being experienced in either place. Most notably for Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal supporters (they know who they are), the sky has not fallen. And, the teachers’ unions have somehow adapted!
Read the rest of this entry »

Dalton McGuinty and his government should be ashamed! While McGuinty announced earlier this year that the Ontario government had halted the appeal process against parents who wanted ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) for their autistic children beyond age six, it continues to put every possible obstacle in their path.  Remember, the McGuinty government spent at least $2.4 million on legal fees. If the cost for each child in an ABA program is $60,000 a year, the $2.4 million spent on legal bills could have funded 40 children for a year.

Now we are finding out that many Ontario parents simply had to give up the fight. As journalist Josh Wingrove reported in yesterday’s Edmonton Journal article, many have quit steady jobs, sold their homes, uprooted their families and moved to Alberta so they could actually get the help their child with autism needs — now — when the child is young enough to benefit.  In fact, Wingrove estimates there are ”hundreds” of autistic children (from Ontario) that have arrived in the province during the last year.

One such father is Nick Dimovsky. He arrived “from Ontario last February with his wife and two children, including five-year-old Garon, who has autism.” Unbelievably, “within four months, his funding arrangements were set up [and] Garon began his ABA treatment … this fall.” In Dimovsky’s own words, he says: “So far, we’re extremely happy. We could only ask for the services to be provided. From there, we’ll see how it goes.”

While some provinces such as Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick provide virtually no funding after age six, Ontario is a rich province. As we know from the McGuinty slush fund scandal, the government seems to have plenty of ”extra” money to spend. In the end, however, I agree with Sandra McKay of the Autism Society of Canada, that a national strategy would be the best thing for these families. Canadians in one province should not have to move thousands of miles to another province to get the help and funding they need.

[...]

Most Canadians know that Ontario is in the midst of a provincial election campaign and the fight for the funding of private faith-based (FB) schools is heating up. It’s a rather strange argument given that half our provincial education budget goes to pay for “separate” Catholic schools. Which means that Ontario already funds “some” FB schools.

Christina Blizzard of the Toronto Sun wrote an excellent column on the topic today. I also heard from a regular Crux-of-the-Matter reader who forwarded a copy of an e-mail she sent to Blizzard about FB schools in B.C.  In that letter, SOR says:

“All faith based schools that agree to follow the BC curriculum and hire only accredited teachers receive 50% funding per student from the government. Most faith based schools cheerfully adhere to this requirement. It results in being able to offer very low tuition fees that are accessible to almost all parents….

What the Ontario Liberal government has cited as ‘racist’ has turned out, for B.C., decidedly the opposite. Faith-based schools have a thriving mix of ethnic diversity. The uniting factor of the parents is the desire for their children to have the best education possible and if their child gets exposed to a little religious teaching in the process, so be it….

I am one of those parents who switched her kids many years ago and it was the best thing I ever did. Both have grown into tolerant, mature and productive members of society.”

So, there is nothing scary or wrong with the notion of FB schools. However, before we get started on this discussion, let’s also be aware that there is an eight hundred pound gorilla in the room with us — no matter which province or territory we live in. That gorilla is none other than public sector teachers’ unions. Remember, every child who leaves a publicly funded system to attend a private school affects the number of teaching positions and support jobs needed in the system they are leaving behind. What that means is union jobs are at stake. Now, we all know how McGuinty achieved peace in Ontario schools. He simply gave the teachers’ unions exactly what they wanted. So, it follows that in order to save union jobs, he will criticize any attempt to change the status quo about funding for FB schools.

In any event, to bolster my argument that FB schools need not be feared, what I want to know is which provinces are funding FB schools? SOR has explained that B.C. partially funds FB schools.  We also know that Alberta has charter schools and Newfoundland and Labrador have some type of full funding, although I am not exactly sure how each system works. 

Blogging is the new journalism. Once I have a variety of comments, I’ll do some formal research to try to put the pieces together. At that point in time, I’ll then have some kind of response to show the people of Ontario that the funding of FB schools is not such a strange concept afterall. 

[...]

All taxpayers across Canada, regardless of their political affiliations, need to know why we should provide publicly funded treatment programs for children (and sometimes adults) who have autism or what is commonly referred to as as “autism spectrum disorder” (ASD). Since this post is meant to inform fellow bloggers and those who use the Internet for research, I will do my best to write in everyday language.

We now know that in 1999, the then Ontario Progressive Conservative government tenders to provide intensive behaviour intervention therapy (IBI) for children under age six and by 2000, those specialized early learning programs were underway.

We also now know that the Dalton McGuinty Ontario Liberal government spent $2.4 million dollars fighting the parents of children with ASD so as not to provide the same type of therapy after age six. While the early learning program was meant to act as a transition to school, the proposed school-aged program was meant to help these children transition to life and work.

Now, rather than discuss the symptoms of autism or ASD and/or the details on how IBI uses repetitive targets to change behaviour, here and here are links where readers can find that information. What I want to concentrate on in this article is the fact that there is ample proof that any type of autism programming makes a difference in the lives of those with the disorder and their families. And, IBI is particularly cost-effective because of its intensity — as long as it is administered between 20 and 30 hours a week.

One source was a study by Krister Jarbrink and Martin Knapp (2001) for the Institute for Psychiatry and the London School of Economics in the U.K.  They found that even minor improvements for people with autism could substantially reduce costs over a lifetime.

Another study was done by John W. Jacobson, James A. Mulick and Gina Green (1998), for Independent Living in the Capital District, Children’s Hospital of Ohio State University and the New England Center for Children. The study was titled “Cost-benefit estimates for early intensive behavior intervention for young children with autism.”

What the study found was “that significant cost-aversion or cost-avoidance may be possible with EIBI [early IBI].” They outline estimates of what the social costs would be with the treatment and without. Put in purely practical terms, what it means is that the disability assistance benefits and health care costs later in life were far higher if IBI was not provided.

So, knowing there is a personal, social and cost-benefit when IBI is provided in early learning programs as well as in public schools, why is it that B.C., Manitoba, PEI, Alberta and the Yukon (and now to some extent in Ontario, although parents are experiencing some disappoint there) are the only Canadian jurisdictions where this currently happens?

Given these findings, all Canadian provinces and territories should be providing this treatment, even if it means getting the federal conservative government to fund it.

Notes:

• For further information, read the white paper entitled “Canadian Autism Research Agenda and Canadian Autism Strategy” prepared by Autism Society Canada in March of 2004. It is very thorough.

• As a parent of an adult son with ASD (now 42) , here is our personal story.

[...]