Canada raises more than $3.8B for girls' education at G7

The Canadian government announced at the G7 summit in Quebec that it has raised more than $3.8 billion in an effort with other countries to send the world's poorest girls to school.

That includes a $400-million investment from Canada as part of the overall three-year commitment, and also includes contributions from G7 partners and the World Bank.

Canada, along with the European Union, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank, will partner on the funds, which will go towards supporting women acquiring job skills, improving teacher training to improve curriculum for girls, expanding the quality of data available on female education and promoting more coordination between humanitarian partners.

A spokesperson in the Prime Minister's Office confirmed no funds were offered by the U.S.

The money raised exceeds the $1.3 billion US over three years that a coalition of 30 non-governmental organizations had called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to raise as part of his chairmanship of the G7 this year. (...)

The Corporate Plan to Groom U.S. Kids for Servitude by Wiping Out Public Schools

New Jersey 'mystery pooper' was schools chief, say police

Kenilworth school superintendent Thomas Tramaglini, 42, was detained after investigators set up a sting operation to snare the "mystery pooper".

Police were called after students complained of frequent excrement near their school running track and field.

Mr Tramaglini is charged with lewdness, littering and defecating in public.

Mr Tramaglini, who earns nearly $150,000 (£110,000) per year as head of the local education authority, was arrested.

Police officers said they had just observed him in the act.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Even the folks who replace the folks?

 Steely_D wrote: 
FUCK the folks in power.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Backwards. Folks in power get to stay in power if the people they govern don't understand the rules or how to get rich or how to eloquently incite dissent.

Education should be THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for a government. Everything else is of secondary importance.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
 If they allowed it to go for typical funding needs then the lawmakers would just cut the budget and let the lottery pay everything. As much as I am in favour of voluntary taxes, I don't think that's the way to go.

On the other hand, I want the government to run promotions to take the sting out of taxes. If you file your taxes on time, you will be entered into a drawing to get a 100% refund.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
weird?  I would call that misrepresentation of funds at the very least.

 pigtail wrote: 
In theory, the lottery money cannot be used for what would be considered typical funding needs. So in a well-to-do district, the funds might get used to provide equipment or supplies for an elective course. When I was in college, the first year of the lotto, our campus radio station scored some sweet sound equipment. Absolutely nonessential but about a 4-decade upgrade in technology.

In a poorer district, kids get iPads maybe, laptops, when their desks are breaking and the building isn't up to code and/or can't deliver internet to those devices. It's weird.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I know here in CA we supposedly give 1% of lottery sales to public schools.  That was the deal when we voted to legalize the lottery here back in the 80s.  I clearly remember that portion of the bill.  So where is that money?  A shit ton of money is spent on lottery sales daily.  Why must we cut educational programs that are already stretched lean to support school safety?  I remember my kids high school was so damn administrative heavy.  With a population, city wide of 50,000.  Why are there 3 vice principals and 2 principals at their high school?  And these administrators are not starving or even living lean like most teachers.  One of those principals drove a BMV 7 series which is what 75-80K?  There is so much wrong with that. 

After Parkland shooting, U.S. states shift education funds to school safety

Thanks NRA!

Please Don’t Get Murdered at School Today

'It was quasi-religious': the great self-esteem con

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I agree completely.  I realize it's a different world than when I was in school, but I remember standardized tests being used to determine (in conjunction with classroom performance) a student's need for advanced subject classes or remedial ones, which I think has similarities to the European system. I don't know if this was determined to be judgmental and thus detrimental to a child's psyche (expectations too high or too low), but as someone who was part of that system, I found it very useful, as I wasn't stuck in classes where I felt bored.

A different experience to testing for aptitude was when I first came to Texas. I was in 4th grade and attending parochial school (as I had for my first three years in Boston). Within days of my starting school, one of the teachers decided I belonged in the remedial reading class, not based on any test or my performance but because I talked "funny", even though I'd been reading since I was about three years of age. So into the remedial class I go, which was taught by a different teacher.  She (a nun - the other was a lay teacher), who was from Ireland and still had a lovely brogue (the shoe *and* the accent), asked why I was in the remedial class. I was still traumatized by the move to this strange world, compounded by being an introvert, so I could only respond with "I don't know, Sister Brendan. Mrs. Polk said I belonged here."  She just shook her head and said, "Oh no - you belong in the advanced reading class!"  And so I was moved into that class...which was taught by the teacher who equated my Boston accent with a lack of reading skill. As you might imagine, this was episode ended up being seminal in the formation of my opinion of Texas in general.  

I would second what Lazy8 posted and add to it by citing what Harold "Doc" Howe II, a widely respected educator and policy expert, thought and said about educational standards and testing based on standards.

I can't find the quote, but he was supposedly once asked about national educational standards. His reply was, in essence, they should be brief and very open-ended/general.

Regarding our current system, he had this to say:

"For the state to say, 'Here's all the little things that all the little kids have got to know, and here's the test you give them, and then we'll know whether they're learning anything,' that's baloney, and that's what we have right now,"

 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Yes, apparently some states have several different salvos of mandated, standardized tests; that seems "distracting" at best.  I agree with your points, particularly with the last two paragraphs. Over they years, I have had several friends who grew up in the UK, and they told me about the different standardized tests they had taken in the 1960s and '70s.  At least two of them were pretty much told that they should go into the trades instead of academics, as determined by their test results.  It wasn't a mark of shame for them, it helped them in many ways - to get into apprenticeships and eventually trades instead of possibly wasting time floundering around in colleges.

 Proclivities wrote:
My midmost just finished his first year teaching full time. In the second half of the year he didn't have a single week that didn't have some kind of state-mandated standardized test.

Which would have been OK with him...if he had gotten to see the results. They won't be available for months after the end of the school year, and they aren't intended to guide classroom instruction. As it was the tests' biggest impact was a reduction in instruction time.

The US isn't the only country in the world to use standardized tests. Europe has been doing it for decades and the stakes are very high with those tests, but the stakes are for the student, not the school. A student's future is largely determined by these tests; you can be guided into a trade school rather than college, or booted out of public education altogether.

There is a lot to be said for this approach. The onus is on the student (and the parents) to learn and prepare, and in some cases teachers are freer to teach. Their outcomes are generally better than ours. I have grave reservations about deciding the path of a life that young (would you want 16 year old you to pick your career, academic or professional?) and like a typical American I value the freedom to reinvent onerself at any time.

Education reform in the US has focused on test scores, and really there isn't another metric that makes any sense. Without metrics there is no way to judge if what you tried worked or not. We have spent endless time and money assessing the problem, but the ensuing reforms have been based on trendy gimmicks rather than the obvious: we need to pay teachers enough to attract people who are good at it, give them authority and autonomy, and let them teach. If we keep looking for magic bullets we will keep failing our children.

Teaching is a very human act. No top-down system is going to change that. Let the humans work.

 kcar wrote: 
It depends on the test and the state or district.  There are many different types of "standardized tests"; they are not all just rote, multiple-choice, bubble-in tests.  However, tests of any sort, are seldom designed to try to "engage kids in learning", nor can they - that is primarily the job of teachers and parents.  Tests are generally designed to determine what students have learned or (more importantly) retained.  Of course, if a student, parent, or teachers determines a weakness from the outcome of a test, then that could encourage or engage them in improving that aspect.  The outcomes of well-designed tests could possibly help 'tailor paths' for students, but still, it's in the hands of states and districts as to how they much can - or want to - spend for tests and specialized or remedial programs.  Still, the majority of tests are rote and mechanical and the administration of them by many districts is often thoughtless and perfunctory.

 kcar wrote:
They (standardized, fill in the bubble tests) are indeed a useful and potentially powerful tool when properly designed and employed. When misused, as they are now, they warp education rather than improving it.