Notes

Protestors Oppose Muslim Prayer in Toronto Public Schools
July 30 2011

About 100 people showed up at the Toronto District School Board’s main office this past week to protest something taking place in many Toronto schools throughout the school year – accommodation for prayer. Protestors coming from such groups as Jewish Defence League (JDL), Canadian Hindu Advocacy and the Christian Heritage Party targeted Muslim prayer at Valley Park Middle School. Students there are allowed to pray on Friday afternoons with an Imam. The arrangement ensures that 300 Valley Park students do indeed return to class after Friday prayers.

Protesters waved signs with such tolerant remarks as “creeping jihad” and chanted “No Mohammed in Our Schools”. With irony not lost on anyone, the JDL website claims that Imams “have been allowed to practice gender apartheid” since girls are segregated from boys during prayer. This is the same group that tried to break up a recent talk by Palestinian activist Omar Bargouti as its members demanded the removal of Palestinians from the area.

Noting that accommodation is not “written in stone”, TDSB Director Chris Spence said that schools are obliged to make accommodations for religions
with thanks to Toronto Star

No Ads For Now
March 16, 2011

In a deft procedural move, trustees at the TDSB voted on March 9 not to “receive” a report recommending that a local firm provide monitors for local high schools in return for advertising rights. Had the Board actually “received” the report it would in effect, have given the go ahead without a vote for TDSB staff to make a major change in school culture by introducing advertising to a much greater degree than ever before. Yes, we have a bit of advertising on soft drink machines, on garbage receptacles rusting outside and indeed those of us of a certain age can remember maps of Canada brought to you by the Neilson Chocolate Company. But this would different, with about 30% of on-air time devoted marketing.

Staff and trustees in favour of a stronger corporate voice in schools, plan to return with a reworked proposal, so expect a round two on this issue. Read the original article

Wisconsin Okays Union Busting Bill
Thursday March 10, 2011
Wisconsin Republicans passed Governor Scott Walker’s bill to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for public employees, yesterday. Though all 14 Democratic state senators had left Wisconsin in protest to block the bill, it did not deter Senate Republicans who cut out any fiscal measures that would have required the Democrats to make up a quorum. This enabled them to pass the anti-union sections. Among the measures are ones that would prevent unions from collecting dues through payroll deductions or requiring members to pay dues.

What's the Meaning of Special Education for Poor and Racialized Children? A TDSB Report on Special Education: Structural Overview and Student Demographics

by Robert S. Brown and Gillian Parekh (from TDSB Research Department)

Implementing the IPRC process in the middle and higher elementary grades does not reflect the more recent philosophy of early interventions. Current educational research cautions that by the middle years of elementary school, changing ‘at risk’ status can be quite difficult (Alexander, Entwistle, & Kabbani, 2001). Moreover, the relative inactivity of the IPRC process in the secondary panel, while acceptable in the 1970’s when most students did not finish high school, is less practical in today’s excelling educational environment. There is an expectation of stability in the current IPRC system. Focusing on identification in the middle years of elementary school works best in a system where students will continue in the same schools in elementary and then progress into board secondary schools. Student mobility is has become a trademark of the TDSB, where a majority of students in Grade 12 started their education outside the board.

Furthermore, as the Auditor-General noted in his recent report, it is not clear why many students are identified with the exceptionalities that they are given. However, the presence of strong socio-economic factors and their close relation to specific exceptionalities may complicate impressions of student ability. Also, exceptionality categories are broad and often overlap yet they may not be expansive enough to capture the needs of all students. This may also be a partial explanation for the 10% of students who have been identified as having multiple exceptionalities. These students are more likely to have been Special Needs students for a longer period of time than students with only one exceptionality. Assuming there are difficulties finding an exact fit for all students within the current list of exceptionalities, it would make sense that the longer the student is under examination by Special Education, the more likely he (and it is mostly he) will be given a second exceptionality.

These challenges may be behind the fundamental importance of the implementation of IEP policies within the TDSB. Most students who are eventually identified through an IPRC process have been placed on a principal approved IEP long before the IPRC meeting. Half of TDSB’s Special Needs population (and more than half of students identified as having non-Gifted exceptionalities) have IEPs but have never been formally identified through the IPRC process. Historically, the IEP was intended to support students who had already been formally identified, not as its own category. Also troubling is the lack of major achievement differences between students who have been officially identified with non-Gifted exceptionalities and students who have only been given an IEP. From an achievement and organizational standpoint, a review led by the Ministry of Education into the purpose and efficacy of the current IPRC process would be in order. Click here to read the full report