In 1970 when my daughters were 2 and 4, I enrolled in Ottawa Teachers College. I did this basically for two reasons: a) to know what would be expected when they were to go to school, or b) to educate them myself if I felt the need to do so. This second reason for teacher training was my belief that one had to have "qualifications" to teach one’s own children at home.
By doing some extensive research in the library I was able to check the Education Acts of most major countries and was surprised and delighted to find that there was usually a clause, called the “Otherwise” clause, which allowed for children to be educated at home by their parents, without qualifications or restrictions.
It was in 1971 that the whole Deschooling Issue blew up. Everett Reimer and Ivan Illich collaboratively developed this concept, and Illich had founded an Institute called CIDOC (Center for Intercultural Documentation) in Mexico where scholars and others were exploring the whole “deinstitutionalization” concept, in medicine, in education, in housing…..
After completing certification I went with my daughters to CIDOC where I attended lectures and participated in discussions. There I met John Holt of “How Children Fail” and “How Children Learn” fame.
Many years later, in 1987 I wrote an article, Home Education: the third option which, being in an education administration journal, carried considerable weight in establishing the validity of the movement and put the system on notice that parents were rapidly evolving into confidence in home education.
Read the article here
Continuing my list of 101 Reasons to Abolish School Boards:
6. Influence peddling has no place in school board business.
Why would a potential trustee, a parent particularly, seek endorsement from a teacher union in seeking election? That’s rank conflict of interest, especially since you have to pass the test of whether you are “progressive” or not!
For a union to actively advertise their offer of power to help elect is rank influence peddling in my view.
It skews, manipulates, and distorts the intent of what school boards are supposed to do – pursue education of children. And, it’s the illegal practice of using influence to obtain favors. It’s a form of bribery, a form of corruption that alters the behavior of recipients in ways not consistent with discharging their public duty. Do you think this story in the Vancouver Sun about a teacher union’s promise to help elect “progressive” trustees if they sign a pledge fits the definition of influence peddling? They seek through trustee pledges to advance 7 points including reducing class size, minimizing standardized testing, and supporting local – instead of provincial – bargaining.
Continuing my list of 101 Reasons to Abolish School Boards:
5. School Boards are Obsolete
‘These institutions served their purpose well in the past. But it is clear that the larger and more bureaucratic they become, the less they are able to fulfill the basic goal of providing a high-quality education. They tend to be dominated by educational elites who serve other goals. Elections have turned into pro forma exercises that mock the purpose of democratic control. School boards also seem incapable of guaranteeing high academic standards. They are now failing to provide children, their parents or taxpayers with enough value to justify their existence.’
Recommendation #1 of “Are School Boards Obsolete: Low voter turn out, rising costs, time to move on…?” by Dennis Owens for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Oct 01/1999)