public Education

[Oleg Bach]

There are serious issues about public education. The strap is NEVER coming back. What can be done to help public schools? Anyone with any sensible ideas?

Real rich folks avoid the public system they control and send THEIR kids to Britain for schooling - here kids are not empowered and the level of awareness even at the university level is deminshing - besides - do you want you bright kid deemed with a mental disease and drugged - do you want your kid to grow up thinking that war is a noble cause when it is all for profit and adventurism? Do you want your kid in Afghanistan where he or she will hit the dust and be forgotten and wasted....? Tell your kid to drop out and get a jump on the drones.

[lukin]

Real rich folks avoid the public system they control and send THEIR kids to Britain for schooling - here kids are not empowered and the level of awareness even at the university level is deminshing - besides - do you want you bright kid deemed with a mental disease and drugged - do you want your kid to grow up thinking that war is a noble cause when it is all for profit and adventurism? Do you want your kid in Afghanistan where he or she will hit the dust and be forgotten and wasted....? Tell your kid to drop out and get a jump on the drones.

I have no idea what you just tried to say. Your post offers very little to our debate.

[blueblood]

Here's how to solve the education debate, get parents to smarten up. Half ass parenting results in half ass kids, which results in problems for home, school, and society.

[lukin]

Here's how to solve the education debate, get parents to smarten up. Half ass parenting results in half ass kids, which results in problems for home, school, and society.

Very true blueblood, but unfortunately, very imossible. You wouldn't believe how many teens get pregnant just because they know they'll get a government cheque. Too many parents who have kids who do no wrong. it sickens me.

[Kitch]

Very true blueblood, but unfortunately, very imossible. You wouldn't believe how many teens get pregnant just because they know they'll get a government cheque. Too many parents who have kids who do no wrong. it sickens me.

Teens may get pregnant for this reason but one way to combat this is... education.

These decisions might be made without a full understanding of how the world works. If this is not so, then a person who decides to have a baby to get government cheques is despicable. Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think that there are THAT many people that are so malevolent so as to knowingly (meaning all the factors involved) bring a child into the world to get a free ride. So, education might help.

So is the problem that in order to get better education we need to get better education? If one buys into what I've just said, that would be true. So what's the solution?

Well, assuming it's not possible to 'make' parents discipline their children more effectively, we CAN try to teach these kids some responsibility at school. The problem is that this necessitates the ability to exact punishment, physical or not (I much prefer non-physical... and I think it'd be harder to sell anyway), without the fear of unfounded parental backlash.

This necessarily means changing the fact that principals actively attempt to avoid this parental backlash because their jobs could be in jeopardy. I've seen situations in which principals changed the grades of students who failed a course because of a complaint from a parent! It's not uncommon at all, apparently. That is ridiculous!!! The kid learns no lessons in responsibility except that they don't need to be responsible in order to be 'successful' in school.

[lukin]

After all the discussion on here about public education, I went to my local Chapters and picked up a book titled

" The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America's Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem " by Maureen Stout.

I reccommend this book to ALL people (liberal+conservative) who are concerned about public education. It has been an eye-opener for me. try to get your hands on this book any way possible.

[Wild Bill]

If any school teacher/principal had used such weaponry on my children I'd have sued them three ways from Sunday. Time-outs work just fine for the little people.

By grade 6 or so the child is often no longer one of the "little people". Timeouts do NOT always work! Many children just ignore them.

I hesitate to make this suggestion but I am slowly starting to believe that if the "system" is refusing to do its job then parents may be forced to take matters into their own hands.

Home schooling is not a fair solution. Why should the civilized kids have to leave? Why not deal with the uncivilized?

Trying to pressure the system is an intimidating task. Your opponents have tax moneys available to fight you. They are paid to sit there while YOU have to go to work!

I'm wondering if it is possible to sue the parents of a problem child for depriving your own child of proper attention in the classroom? After all, if the problem child misbehaves he or she is the one taking resources away from the others.

I realize that this is a very drastic step but if it were done in sufficient numbers I believe it would cause enough of a public outcry to force some more positive actions within the system.

Actually, anything that gives good parents more power would be a positive step. The beauty of a voucher system is that it would allow parents to deprive bad schools of funding. This would also force changes.

Just some thoughts...

[Mr.Canada]

I refuse to put my children in the public school system for just this reason. A lot of the kids are uncivilized and paints a clear picture of how their parents must be, a mess.

I'm not talking about the odd fight, boys will be boys after all. I draw the line when 10 year olds are stabbing each other. That is not ok and obviously a problem from their home with the parenting or lack thereof.

Thank goodness for many who use the public system that these brats are mostly in the inner cities and away from where the civilized people live.

That plus I don't want my children brainwashed 8 hours a day by some socialist.

[guyser]

Thank goodness for many who use the public system that these brats are mostly in the inner cities and away from where the civilized people live.

That would be nice, if it were true.

That plus I don't want my children brainwashed 8 hours a day by some socialist.

Considering your viewpoints, it would be an improvement.

[Mr.Canada]

That would be nice, if it were true.

Considering your viewpoints, it would be an improvement.

Ah but it is true. The suburbs are further away than the suburbs of old. I'll use the GTA as an example as that is where I grew up. It used to be nice and quiet in Mississauga and Brampton. Bedroom communities but since the large influx it is no longer so. These two places have more crime now then ever before as they have more people. Violent crime and gangs at that. This is fact.

I now live in Halton Hills where we do not have these problems and have no transit. Everything is quiet and peaceful. Coincidence?

I want my kids to think for themselves and not believe everything just because a teacher or anyone including myself says that it is so. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.

[Kitch]

Ah but it is true. The suburbs are further away than the suburbs of old. I'll use the GTA as an example as that is where I grew up. It used to be nice and quiet in Mississauga and Brampton. Bedroom communities but since the large influx it is no longer so. These two places have more crime now then ever before as they have more people. Violent crime and gangs at that. This is fact.

I now live in Halton Hills where we do not have these problems and have no transit. Everything is quiet and peaceful. Coincidence?

I want my kids to think for themselves and not believe everything just because a teacher or anyone including myself says that it is so. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.

Bud, as a teacher in Toronto I can tell you that there are more problems in schools outside of the 'inner city'. But, it seems that you're referring to Mississauga and Brampton as 'inner city' regions. Well, either way, schools in down town Toronto are GENERALLY better than those in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.

Also, I've given you all some insight into the workings of the public school system with regard to what's broken, what the effect is, and what could be done about it. Yet, many of you seem disinterested and continue to speculate about what can be done... such as sue parents of problem children?! Come on now!

Perhaps, as a teacher, I'm one of those socialists who's words and ideas are unworthy of consideration.

[Wild Bill]

Bud, as a teacher in Toronto I can tell you that there are more problems in schools outside of the 'inner city'. But, it seems that you're referring to Mississauga and Brampton as 'inner city' regions. Well, either way, schools in down town Toronto are GENERALLY better than those in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.

Also, I've given you all some insight into the workings of the public school system with regard to what's broken, what the effect is, and what could be done about it. Yet, many of you seem disinterested and continue to speculate about what can be done... such as sue parents of problem children?! Come on now!

Perhaps, as a teacher, I'm one of those socialists who's words and ideas are unworthy of consideration.

No, but as a teacher you may be too close to the problem to have a clear perspective. You have to struggle with it every working day. It's like with cops, how as the years go by they tend to socialize only with other cops. It's part of being human.

As for suing the parents of problem children, why do you pooh-pooh the idea? Consider, a citizen pays his taxes expecting that part of the deal is a good education for his children. If the schools do not fulfill their part of the bargain and the political process seems paralyzed, is a parent not entitled to redress?

If a child breaks a neighbour's window, it is expected that the parents are obligated to pay for the damage. How is this different if an unruly child takes time and resources away from others in the classroom?

As a parent of two children myself, my primary concern is their safety and education. That of other children is secondary. That of problem children, particularly those who have parents that aren't fulfilling their own responsibilities is even farther down the list. I'm not against those children with special needs being cared for, just that I don't believe that they are entitled to take away from other children.

I believe that if the State takes the taxes then they take the responsibility, period! If they don't live up to it then the first step is political grievance. If that fails then anything that works is fair game! If getting lawyers involved works then at least that is a far more responsible step than marching into a school board meeting and "going postal"!

If it ruffles some feathers, who cares? Again, the primary interest is that of the civilized child and their education. Everything else is secondary. Anything that doesn't work is a negative and whatever DOES work is a positive!

I personally have seen bullying issues going on at my children's elementary school where the bully is just given anger management session after session, while he continues to prey on victims! When one poor little boy finally out of desperation fought back, HE was punished!

In effect, he was made a victim twice! He received a very negative lesson, that authority figures will NOT protect him! No child should ever be made to believe such a thing.

His parents eventually had to put him into another school. Meanwhile, the bully is still there, taking more sessions, with his very own EA to cater to him.

If it had have been one of MY children involved, I'm afraid I would not have been nearly so mild about trying for a solution. As I said, my first responsibility is to my own children. I would take callous and bureaucratic disregard for my child's welfare quite personally.

[guyser]

As for suing the parents of problem children, why do you pooh-pooh the idea? Consider, a citizen pays his taxes expecting that part of the deal is a good education for his children. If the schools do not fulfill their part of the bargain and the political process seems paralyzed, is a parent not entitled to redress?

For the simple reason a parent is not the guardian when in school. The school is the guardian while in session.

You would have to sue the school board.

If a child breaks a neighbour's window, it is expected that the parents are obligated to pay for the damage. How is this different if an unruly child takes time and resources away from others in the classroom?

Cause and effect. My kid threw a rock, the window broke from said rock. Case closed, here's your $50.

No cause and what effect?. My kid is prone to inattention but your honour that teacher was insufficient in her handling of my child. She ran a loose ship so why am I here to defend my child?

In other words, put a little doubt in the mind of the court that the teacher could not handle what most teachers could, and you find yourself on the losing end of the battle.....with costs.

You contradict yourself here.....

I believe that if the State takes the taxes then they take the responsibility, period!

Then why think about suing the parents?

[Kitch]

No, but as a teacher you may be too close to the problem to have a clear perspective. You have to struggle with it every working day. It's like with cops, how as the years go by they tend to socialize only with other cops. It's part of being human.

As for suing the parents of problem children, why do you pooh-pooh the idea? Consider, a citizen pays his taxes expecting that part of the deal is a good education for his children. If the schools do not fulfill their part of the bargain and the political process seems paralyzed, is a parent not entitled to redress?

If a child breaks a neighbour's window, it is expected that the parents are obligated to pay for the damage. How is this different if an unruly child takes time and resources away from others in the classroom?

As a parent of two children myself, my primary concern is their safety and education. That of other children is secondary. That of problem children, particularly those who have parents that aren't fulfilling their own responsibilities is even farther down the list. I'm not against those children with special needs being cared for, just that I don't believe that they are entitled to take away from other children.

I believe that if the State takes the taxes then they take the responsibility, period! If they don't live up to it then the first step is political grievance. If that fails then anything that works is fair game! If getting lawyers involved works then at least that is a far more responsible step than marching into a school board meeting and "going postal"!

If it ruffles some feathers, who cares? Again, the primary interest is that of the civilized child and their education. Everything else is secondary. Anything that doesn't work is a negative and whatever DOES work is a positive!

I personally have seen bullying issues going on at my children's elementary school where the bully is just given anger management session after session, while he continues to prey on victims! When one poor little boy finally out of desperation fought back, HE was punished!

In effect, he was made a victim twice! He received a very negative lesson, that authority figures will NOT protect him! No child should ever be made to believe such a thing.

His parents eventually had to put him into another school. Meanwhile, the bully is still there, taking more sessions, with his very own EA to cater to him.

If it had have been one of MY children involved, I'm afraid I would not have been nearly so mild about trying for a solution. As I said, my first responsibility is to my own children. I would take callous and bureaucratic disregard for my child's welfare quite personally.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that suing parents of other kids isn't a plausible solution, but as guyser said, it's not as effective as you think it might be. On top of that, in my opinion, it would likely make things worse.

Reading your answer, I don't think that you read what I wrote before as you didn't comment directly on it. That's fine, but I tried to give you some insight into how you can solve the problem with the school boards themselves. Now, that also depends on where you live as I can only comment on teaching in Ontario.

The litigious nature of our society is one of the main contributing factors to discipline problems in schools today. Parents try to sue teachers, principals, schools and school boards for any of a number of reasons. This obviously costs school boards and teacher unions a LOT of money. I don't think we really have an appreciation for just how much money it does cost.

So those who you think sit around with access to tax money (while YOU go to work) aren't sitting around. On the contrary, they're fighting law suits brought forward by parents ranging from greedy and misinformed to justified (yes, some law suits are definitely called for).

So, the result, my friend, is that principals, WHO ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE TEACHER UNION, don't have the protection of a union (in the same way that we teachers do). If many law suits are brought against their school, it reflects poorly upon them and the school boards don't take kindly to this... because it costs the board a HUGE amount of money. So, there are incentives for principals to cater to parents regardless of the legitimacy of their complaints.

As I said, it is not uncommon for a principal to override a teacher's decision about a student's grade (and when I say decision, I don't mean an arbitrary judgement) and grant a student credit for a course that he/she failed simply because a parent complained. So you can see that it might not be in a principal's best interest to discipline a student when they run the risk of gaining the attention of an angry parent (and their lawyer).

The answer is one of two things. Either parents stops being so ridiculous in blaming the school for all of their children's problems (meaning, take responsibility for your kid if your kid is a distraction to others and themselves). AND, give principals the protection that they need from parents.

You want to sue other parents who won't discipline their children, right? Well schools want to try to take on that responsibility, but we can only do that if our livelihood is not at risk (although it should be at risk for those who go too far in their attempts to discipline).

[Wild Bill]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that suing parents of other kids isn't a plausible solution, but as guyser said, it's not as effective as you think it might be. On top of that, in my opinion, it would likely make things worse.

Reading your answer, I don't think that you read what I wrote before as you didn't comment directly on it. That's fine, but I tried to give you some insight into how you can solve the problem with the school boards themselves. Now, that also depends on where you live as I can only comment on teaching in Ontario.

The litigious nature of our society is one of the main contributing factors to discipline problems in schools today. Parents try to sue teachers, principals, schools and school boards for any of a number of reasons. This obviously costs school boards and teacher unions a LOT of money. I don't think we really have an appreciation for just how much money it does cost.

So those who you think sit around with access to tax money (while YOU go to work) aren't sitting around. On the contrary, they're fighting law suits brought forward by parents ranging from greedy and misinformed to justified (yes, some law suits are definitely called for).

So, the result, my friend, is that principals, WHO ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE TEACHER UNION, don't have the protection of a union (in the same way that we teachers do). If many law suits are brought against their school, it reflects poorly upon them and the school boards don't take kindly to this... because it costs the board a HUGE amount of money. So, there are incentives for principals to cater to parents regardless of the legitimacy of their complaints.

As I said, it is not uncommon for a principal to override a teacher's decision about a student's grade (and when I say decision, I don't mean an arbitrary judgement) and grant a student credit for a course that he/she failed simply because a parent complained. So you can see that it might not be in a principal's best interest to discipline a student when they run the risk of gaining the attention of an angry parent (and their lawyer).

The answer is one of two things. Either parents stops being so ridiculous in blaming the school for all of their children's problems (meaning, take responsibility for your kid if your kid is a distraction to others and themselves). AND, give principals the protection that they need from parents.

You want to sue other parents who won't discipline their children, right? Well schools want to try to take on that responsibility, but we can only do that if our livelihood is not at risk (although it should be at risk for those who go too far in their attempts to discipline).

I'm well aware that many delinquent parents try to sue school figures for faults in their own children as a result of their poor parenting. I'm suggesting that other parents suing THEM could be a counter-pressure!

Do they fight the lawsuits? Or do they just cave because it's cheaper and politically expedient? How often does a principal REFUSE to override a teacher's decision? Can you name any precedents in law from actual court decisions?

The publicity from fighting such lawsuits might well be the ammunition needed to put a stop to such nonsense. The cost of one test case is far less than the social costs of promoting non-deserving students. A worthless degree might get you a job but it likely won't help you keep one. Unless you're lucky enough to become a member of CUPE, of course.

It doesn't sound to me like either of your "two things" answers are very "real world". Expecting some parents to "stop being so ridiculous..." is a nice wish. How do you expect this to be accomplished?

As for giving principals protection, what kind of protection are you suggesting? If it is legal protection from lawsuits, as employees of the school boards they act as board agents. Any lawsuit should end up placed against the local board. It is up to the board to decide if they in turn wish to treat the principal as a problem employee. This is no different than if a McDonalds' server dropped a hot coffee in your lap. You don't sue the employee. You sue McDonalds.

The only remaining protection necessary would be from verbal or physical abuse. Physical abuse would be covered by common law. Verbal abuse goes with the position. If the principal can't handle it then by definition they are a poor manager.

I suspect that all those expensive lawsuits that are taking up so much of school boards' time are hearsay and actually don't exist. If I'm wrong, just name some! I've heard too many stories about principals running for trustee positions that cave to any and all parental complaints so the boat is not rocked at the next election.

Anyhow, all this still doesn't change my personal position on how I would handle any problems for my own children. I have been very fortunate so far. If that were to change I can guarantee that I would NOT be quiet and obliging! I don't give a damn for someone else's union and care for no one else's children as much as my own.

[Kitch]

I'm well aware that many delinquent parents try to sue school figures for faults in their own children as a result of their poor parenting. I'm suggesting that other parents suing THEM could be a counter-pressure!

Do they fight the lawsuits? Or do they just cave because it's cheaper and politically expedient? How often does a principal REFUSE to override a teacher's decision? Can you name any precedents in law from actual court decisions?

The publicity from fighting such lawsuits might well be the ammunition needed to put a stop to such nonsense. The cost of one test case is far less than the social costs of promoting non-deserving students. A worthless degree might get you a job but it likely won't help you keep one. Unless you're lucky enough to become a member of CUPE, of course.

It doesn't sound to me like either of your "two things" answers are very "real world". Expecting some parents to "stop being so ridiculous..." is a nice wish. How do you expect this to be accomplished?

As for giving principals protection, what kind of protection are you suggesting? If it is legal protection from lawsuits, as employees of the school boards they act as board agents. Any lawsuit should end up placed against the local board. It is up to the board to decide if they in turn wish to treat the principal as a problem employee. This is no different than if a McDonalds' server dropped a hot coffee in your lap. You don't sue the employee. You sue McDonalds.

The only remaining protection necessary would be from verbal or physical abuse. Physical abuse would be covered by common law. Verbal abuse goes with the position. If the principal can't handle it then by definition they are a poor manager.

I suspect that all those expensive lawsuits that are taking up so much of school boards' time are hearsay and actually don't exist. If I'm wrong, just name some! I've heard too many stories about principals running for trustee positions that cave to any and all parental complaints so the boat is not rocked at the next election.

Anyhow, all this still doesn't change my personal position on how I would handle any problems for my own children. I have been very fortunate so far. If that were to change I can guarantee that I would NOT be quiet and obliging! I don't give a damn for someone else's union and care for no one else's children as much as my own.

Hearsay? Go here: www.oct.ca the web site of the Ontario College of Teachers. Check out "Professionally Speaking" the publication that the OCT puts out every... I don't know how often, and look at the "blue pages". Here you'll find ALL the investigations of teachers for... the period of the publication. Only teachers found guilty will be named. Check out how many are dismissed. And keep in mind that this is the professional association, not legal courts. Actual court hearings may happen simultaneously or after the OCT completes their own investigation (which is often more scrutinizing since teachers are held to a higher standard than are other citizens... by our own professional association that is... the body that licenses us).

The type of protection that I'm referring to for principals is the type that a union can provide. They used to be part of the teacher's union until the last time we had a strike. Then, during the Harris government (as a time reference, not as a shot at a particular government), they were removed from our union and now have the Ontario Principals Council which I believe is not as effective as our union was for them. Indeed the school boards end up settling out of court more often than not because it is cheaper to do so in a lot of cases.

How often does a principal refuse to override a teacher's decision? I don't know. I don't even know how often they do override teacher decisions. All that I know is that it's happened. I've read about it in the paper and it happened to my fiance who is also a teacher. The principal actually approached her afterwards to tell her, which doesn't always happen, and explained that he felt that he was doing HER a favour by appeasing the parents of two students of hers... who, she told me, did not deserve the grades that they were given. Had he not done so, the parents could have caused a LOT of grief for my fiance.

So, the threat of legal action has weakened the authority of everyone in the school system. You propose taking action against other parents. Well, besides the extreme difficulty in 'proving' your case, the teacher is ultimately responsible for the behaviour in the classroom. We're just not always supported in ways that we need. When those two students got the grades that their Mom's wanted, they presumably lost respect for my fiance and no longer acknowledge her authority, both as an educator and disciplinarian.

But what would the overall result be if parents started suing other parents? We already have kids in our schools with an enormous sense of entitlement because their parents have taught them, through their own actions, that the students is always right. If the parents of good kids start suing the parents of bad kids you create a number of problems. Bullying against the good kids, you teach the good kids that they way to get what you want out of society is to sue somebody, you run the risk of putting the children of poor parents in worse situations (which may be the initial reason for misbehaviour), and you very well could have frivolous law suits from this front too. Not to mention the complete lack of ability for schools to teach any sort of responsibility for actions because that is done in court, not in the classroom.

Not very "real world" answers? Changing societal attitudes is indeed wishful thinking, but protecting principals so that they are not at risk of losing their jobs if too many parents try to sue. Think of school boards as insurance companies. Insurance adjusters that pay out too much are not 'good' for business. Those who reject a lot of claims are great because they save money. Similarly, principals that avoid law suits at ALL costs... even if the cost is YOUR kid's education... are 'good' employees of the board. I am offended at your suggestion though. Why do you keep trying to down play the possibility that I have something to offer? Either I'm a teacher and therefore too far into the culture, or my claims are hearsay or just not realistic. Meanwhile, I'm the one trained as an educator, exposed to classrooms all the time, deal with principals and problem students and have been given guidance by current and former school board super intendants. How are you so sure that I'm wrong about what I've said?

[Kitch]

I was wrong about principals not belonging to a union. They do but it's a small union and there are relatively few members (compared to the teacher's federations) that they don't have enough money to back principals in law suits. So, if a principal is named in a law suit, they're personally at risk.

They used to be members of the teacher federations but Mike Harris wanted them to be managers instead of 'head teachers'.

Regardless, this is still the reason why discipline has become ineffective in Ontario schools. (Or at least a contributing factor).

[guyser]

I was wrong about principals not belonging to a union. They do but it's a small union and there are relatively few members (compared to the teacher's federations) that they don't have enough money to back principals in law suits. So, if a principal is named in a law suit, they're personally at risk.

With all due respect (and not looking into it-as yet) I will say there is no chance that is true.

Personally at risk? Who in their right mind would stay in the job? Not one Principal. I am having dinner with a Principal saturday night and will ask him. (Hamilton Wentworth)

An E&O policy would have been taken out before they were cut from the Teachers Union in order to protect themselves.I will pretty much guarantee this....

[Kitch]

With all due respect (and not looking into it-as yet) I will say there is no chance that is true.

Personally at risk? Who in their right mind would stay in the job? Not one Principal. I am having dinner with a Principal saturday night and will ask him. (Hamilton Wentworth)

An E&O policy would have been taken out before they were cut from the Teachers Union in order to protect themselves.I will pretty much guarantee this....

Ask away. I spoke with my fiance's mother who taught for about 25 years, took her principal qualification courses and now works as a guidance counsellor... which is a position that works very closely with school administration. And my professor in 'law class' in teacher's college, a former super intendant and long time principal, was the first to explain to me that principals do not have the same protection that we teachers do.

By personally at risk I mean that if a school/board is sued and the principal is named, and the suit is lost, then the principal is not financially backed by their union.

Teachers are protected by the OTF, Ontario Teacher's Federation. How many schools are there in Ontario? And how many teachers are there in each school? There can be over 100 teachers in a building. How much money does that generate in union dues? Now, how many principals and vice principals are there in each school? Their union simply can't generate the necessary funds. It's too small.

(And when a parent sues, they usually name as many entities as they can... teacher, principal, school, school board... as there is a better chance of getting money).

If you don't "believe" this to be true, what explanation can you offer for principals avoiding conflicts with parents? Even when they're in the right?

[Griz]

The biggest issue is that there is no respect anymore. It's sad but it is true. We live in a society of contradictions. On one hand, in school they preach anti-bullying, yet all the kid has to do is turn on the TV and listen to people like that Hockey Night In Canada guy with the big mouth. Or, they go home and listen to dad whine about immigrants and the indians. Listen to the mass media and they whirl insults and slander. Watch a hollywood movie and the same crap who desensitize issues by making a joke of it. Add to this, our so-called manly leaders who fight around like little kids and then when they don't get their way--they jump up and down like some kid who didn't get his way in a candy store--that's the problem--the answer grow-up

[Kitch]

The biggest issue is that there is no respect anymore. It's sad but it is true. We live in a society of contradictions. On one hand, in school they preach anti-bullying, yet all the kid has to do is turn on the TV and listen to people like that Hockey Night In Canada guy with the big mouth. Or, they go home and listen to dad whine about immigrants and the indians. Listen to the mass media and they whirl insults and slander. Watch a hollywood movie and the same crap who desensitize issues by making a joke of it. Add to this, our so-called manly leaders who fight around like little kids and then when they don't get their way--they jump up and down like some kid who didn't get his way in a candy store--that's the problem--the answer grow-up

Those are indeed problems with our society. But schools have the ability to combat this, if not change it. But that ability has been taken away from schools, in Ontario at least.

[guyser]

. And my professor in 'law class' in teacher's college, a former super intendant and long time principal, was the first to explain to me that principals do not have the same protection that we teachers do.

That is different than having none.

By personally at risk I mean that if a school/board is sued and the principal is named, and the suit is lost, then the principal is not financially backed by their union.

Teachers are no financially backed by the union anyway. They purchase a policy for defence, and payment, upon liability being apportioned to them.

If the Principal is not backed by the school board , a hold harmless agreement if you will, then the Principals have their own policy to defend and pay out for claims.

Teachers are protected by the OTF, Ontario Teacher's Federation. How many schools are there in Ontario? And how many teachers are there in each school? There can be over 100 teachers in a building. How much money does that generate in union dues? Now, how many principals and vice principals are there in each school? Their union simply can't generate the necessary funds. It's too small.

Irrelevant the numbers of teachers vs Princ.'s . Smaller numbers, smaller risk, smaller premiums, and yes, Princ can afford it.

If you don't "believe" this to be true, what explanation can you offer for principals avoiding conflicts with parents? Even when they're in the right?

Lots of reasons , none of them having to do with lawsuits.

[Kitch]

That is different than having none.

Teachers are no financially backed by the union anyway. They purchase a policy for defence, and payment, upon liability being apportioned to them.

If the Principal is not backed by the school board , a hold harmless agreement if you will, then the Principals have their own policy to defend and pay out for claims.

Irrelevant the numbers of teachers vs Princ.'s . Smaller numbers, smaller risk, smaller premiums, and yes, Princ can afford it.

Lots of reasons , none of them having to do with lawsuits.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were a teacher, principal or somehow involved in the education 'industry'.

Teachers are members of the Ontario Federation of Teachers (Which is the umbrella organization for the actual unions). There are about 135 000 members (teachers) in Ontario. Have a look for yourself: http://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/about_otf/organization.php

Principals are members of the Ontario Principals Council (OPC). There are about 5 000 members, all of whom are not principals. Look here: http://www.principals.on.ca/cms/default.aspx

One of the Ontario teacher federations, the OSSTF, Ontario Secondary School Teacher Federation, requires 1.3% of a teacher's gross salary for membership. Teacher salaries range from 40K to 83K depending on your placement on the grid (4 categories based on qualifications with pay increases for years of experience up to 10 years) in 2007 in the Toronto District School Board, for example. (http://www.osstf.on.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=3952,3949,580,442,365,Documents&MediaID=926&Filename=wheretoteach-Nov-2006.pdf).

According to the OPC requires $1017.00 per year for membership (http://www.principals.on.ca/cms/display.aspx?cid=4457). Principals in Ontario make between 83K and 107K, in 2006 at least (http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/newproposals/archives/pdf/newsletter-June2.pdf).

So, 135000 members x 1.3% = $1066 assuming that teachers are all paid at the top of the OSSTF, TDSB grid

Vs. 5000 members x $1017/year.

The OPC cannot provide the type of 'insurance' that the OTF unions can. And, as you can see, principal salaries are good, but not significantly better than teachers. So, principals can't necessarily afford to pay for settlements.

Fewer principals = reduced risk? For real? Most parental complaints are aimed at teachers... because there are more of them, therefore higher risk, as you say. But each teacher in a school has the same boss... the principal, who is also frequently considered responsible for the actions of the teachers. And the school board is usually named on a law suit because of their deep(er) pockets and the idea that they are held responsible for the principals that they hire. These three are usually named on law suits. So, the fact that there are fewer principals does not mean less risk. In fact, it means MORE risk for them.

I don't know how to find examples of individual law suits, but If you can find some, you'll likely find the principal named on many of them.

Please, if you can drop some more of your wisdom, explain some of the many reasons why principals are reluctant to oppose parents and/or effectively discipline students? If you're going to speculate again, at least provide some reasonable justification for your guess.

[guyser]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were a teacher, principal or somehow involved in the education 'industry'.

I'm not. Dosnt matter anyhow.

Teachers are members of the Ontario Federation of Teachers

Principals are members of the Ontario Principals Council (OPC).The OPC cannot provide the type of 'insurance' that the OTF unions can. And, as you can see, principal salaries are good, but not significantly better than teachers. So, principals can't necessarily afford to pay for settlements.

Not sure what you are getting at.

Anyhow, the OPC can and likely does provide the same coverage w respect to insurance that the teachers have. There is no reason it cant. Perhaps expense may be one reason, perhaps a higher deductible is in place, who knows?

Principals ability to pay claims is moot since I am sure they have a policy to cover them. Without, every principal would be putting his house ,earnings and his families lives on the line . They are not that stupid. All risk and no reward.

Fewer principals = reduced risk? For real? Most parental complaints are aimed at teachers... because there are more of them, therefore higher risk, as you say. But each teacher in a school has the same boss... the principal, who is also frequently considered responsible for the actions of the teachers. And the school board is usually named on a law suit because of their deep(er) pockets and the idea that they are held responsible for the principals that they hire. These three are usually named on law suits. So, the fact that there are fewer principals does not mean less risk. In fact, it means MORE risk for them.

Fewer people. less risk, yes.

Of course everyone is named on a lawsuit. Vicarious liability rules. The reason everyone is named, at least until discovery, is to ensure the ability to pay is met . (when the applicant wins that is)

Please, if you can drop some more of your wisdom,

Love to, ask away....

explain some of the many reasons why principals are reluctant to oppose parents and/or effectively discipline students? If you're going to speculate again, at least provide some reasonable justification for your guess.

Every case a parent brings to the principal is different. Guidelines dictate what a Principal can do in most cases. (assumption from converse w principal)

[Kitch]

I'm not. Dosnt matter anyhow.

Not sure what you are getting at.

Anyhow, the OPC can and likely does provide the same coverage w respect to insurance that the teachers have. There is no reason it cant. Perhaps expense may be one reason, perhaps a higher deductible is in place, who knows?

Principals ability to pay claims is moot since I am sure they have a policy to cover them. Without, every principal would be putting his house ,earnings and his families lives on the line . They are not that stupid. All risk and no reward.

Fewer people. less risk, yes.

Of course everyone is named on a lawsuit. Vicarious liability rules. The reason everyone is named, at least until discovery, is to ensure the ability to pay is met . (when the applicant wins that is)

Love to, ask away....

Every case a parent brings to the principal is different. Guidelines dictate what a Principal can do in most cases. (assumption from converse w principal)

Clearly it does matter whether or not you're involved in education. You are telling me that I'm wrong when I live this stuff and you merely speculate!

You don't know what I'm getting at? You quoted part of what I said but left out the important parts. Did you even read the info that I provided? 135000 teachers in Ontario and 5000 principals. They both pay close to the same in union dues. That means that the principal's union doesn't have the same ability to financially back their members in law suits as do the teacher federations... especially because a given principal is more likely to be named than a given teacher. (Less principals = HIGHER risk for them... I can't understand why you don't see this). Each principal could have ~100 teachers working for them. Let's say three are sued. That's one law suit for each teacher AND THREE FOR THAT ONE PRINCIPAL!

And by the way, we don't have 'insurance' policies as you seem to think. We pay union dues and the union provides us with legal representation and, if need be, takes on any financial liability. It is an 'insurance policy' in some sense, but that's not how it's described typically.

Of course every situation is different for a principal. But that doesn't answer the question! WHY are they reluctant to discipline students!? Kids who get sent to the office are often sent back with nothing more than a warning. Kids know that they will not be punished. I've heard it from their mouths! I specifically asked some students what happens when they are sent to the office. The overwhelming response is 'nothing much'. My fiance, who is also a teacher, has had the same experience. Her mother AND father are both teachers and have told me that principals are more reluctant to follow through with threats of discipline these days. I asked you to explain why you think this is so. You simply deflected by saying their response depends on the situation. Well, what are some of these situations?

I've heard of people being passed over for principal positions because they called the police when a student approached them and accused a teacher of sexual abuse. This brings negative attention to the board, and the big shots in the board don't like this. Regardless of what's in the interest of the student. Principals are subjected to unnecessary politics that teachers are not. We have our own, but they don't prevent us from doing our job.

I've given much evidence to support the idea that principals can't/won't do what is needed in order to discipline students, which is to the detriment of ALL the students in a school because teachers are spending more and more time with the problem students. It seems, unfortunately, that few of you "believe" what I've said, even though I'm not aware of any other individuals on this forum who have ANY experience as an educator.