School boards across Canada are habitually crying poor and the local and national media are filled with stories about “education cuts” threatening to “devastate the system. ” When asked, where can cuts be made, school officials and teacher unionists respond with blank stares or proclaim, rather lamely, that there is “no fat” whatsoever in the system.
Money is tight in public education, or so we are told, when “educuts” are on the table. Potential cuts to administrative and classroom expenses are then openly debated, except when it comes to the matter of investing in computer technology. Why, I wondered, is Information Technology (IT) so sacrosanct?
Several months ago, Paul Taylor of the British Columbia firm Blue Curl, but based in New Glasgow, NS, contacted me with what seemed to be an outlandish claim. School boards could reap “major cost savings ,” he insisted, if they abandoned their current Information Technology (IT) policy and infrastructure, embraced “N-Computing” technology, and implemented “virtual desktops” on a larger scale. Not only would the education system dramatically cut costs, it would also greatly expand computer access points in our public schools. http://www.bluecurl.ca/
Almost everyone in public education circles seems to accept that putting computers in schools costs big money and IT would be the last place to look when cutting costs. Besides, promoters of the “21st Century Skills” curriculum simply assume that plenty of public-private partnership funding will automatically materialize for IT-driven school reform. Few Canadian educators are even aware of the divisive public debate raging in Detroit, Michigan, over “cutting teachers, while adding computers.” http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/01/budgeting-cutting-people-adding-computers.html
Desktop virtualization is not really new, but you would think so, judging from official response across the Maritimes. NComputing was founded by Californian Steven Dukker in 2003, and it now leads the world in producing virtual desktop computer devices. It greatly reduces the cost of computing by allowing multiple people to simultaneously share a single computer.
With the release of its new L300 model featuring enhanced video capabilities, the NComputing product has taken-off and sold 500,000 seats in the 18 months ending in September 2007. Since the, it has now been adopted by America’s largest school system in New York City as well as in California, Macedonia, Mexico, Nigeria, India, and all over the Asia Pacific. http://www.smbworldasia.com/en/content/ncomputing-cusp-changing-economics-it
While Nova Scotia is lagging, NComputing pilots are underway in New Brunswick’s District 16, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. Most of these small scale experiments involve retiring 10 aging PCs in favour of one much cheaper L300 virtual desktop system at a minimum saving of 50% per seat.
What’s behind the resistance within the system? Most school superintendents still depend heavily upon the computer experts in setting policy and defining the priorities. Many IT directors are “old guard” computer science teachers or techies. They not only tend to favour name brands like Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, and Apple but are products of a system based upon segregated computer labs and restricting student access to the Internet on school property. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/tablets-netbooks-thin-clients-cheap-desktops-what-to-buy/4378
Many school boards have also grown dependent upon the Industry Canada model of distributing “hand-me-down” donated computers to the schools. That is why Nova Scotia has 60,000 computers in a system serving 127,000 students, many of which badly need replacement.
Blue Curl’s Taylor sells what was once called “thin client” technology and he puts it much more bluntly. “Many in the IT field, believe it or not, are wedded to the ‘fat client’ model, favouring products where parts break down and upgrades prove lucrative.”
Nova Scotia’s technology consultant, Wayne Hamilton, is typical of many educational techies. He’s known about “virtual desktops” for 7 years and has personally experimented with the NComputing product. Initially, he found fault with the devices, questioning the quality of the prototypes, software licensing costs, and the potential band-width challenges.
In a public system, saddled with hundreds of broken-down computers, Hamilton was spooked by use of “open source software” and the need to invest in better “parent” computers. Reducing the number of computers requiring servicing, also threatened jobs, posing another significant deterrent.
Adopting NComputing will save significant tax dollars. In the Chignesto-Central School Board, some 23,000 students now are served by 12,000 aging computers sucking tremendous amounts of electrical power. Implementing NComputing, Taylor contends, would cut IT costs by 50 per cent and save on power usage. Indeed, many schools could aspire to having carbon neutral computer labs.
Cutting “the fat” in educational computing is bound to ruffle a few feathers. Yet Taylor is one determined Nova Scotian computer salesman. After months of flogging his NComputing technology, cracks are appearing in the passive resistance. He takes heart from small victories in Northern New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Indian Brook First Nation. In school computing as in personal life, slimming down requires self-analysis, setting achievable targets, and sheer determination.
Back to the fundamental question: Why is a serious scrutiny of IT expenditures in public education rarely, if ever, undertaken? Do new innovations such as NComputing’s virtual desktop have the potential for significantly reducing the costs while maintaining or enhancing service? If so, why do senior bureaucrats and IT managers resist such initiatives?
This whole issue can be approached differently and I’d like to present a macro critique, perhaps a little reductionist but interesting nevertheless.
A huge amount of the most advanced technology developed by the USA was developed by business in conjunction with the military including the aerospace program. While there was a Soviet bogeyman around (up until 1989), there was no limit on the military-industrial complex (MIC) that President Dwight D. Eisenhower even warned us against.
This MI Complex was so geared up that it could not be sustained under periods of prolonged peace without profound wrenching change. The fact is that this economy became so efficient but also so large that it actually generated “overproduction” meaning its unit costs and its most efficient, did not have enough customers. The military absorbed this overproduction until the early 90′s.
Now, the high tech industry practically DEMANDS that the state, previously in the form of the military, but now in the form of the health, and education areas, purchase huge amounts of technology in order to maintain sales at an economy-of-scale necessary to maintain a dominant position in the world.
Thus we have huge pressure for E-Health and the rapid introduction of technology into education. The big cheerleader for this movement is, shock of all shocks , Bill Gates who has become the real Secretary of Education in he USA.
Gates has another priority and that is to cause the education system to overproduce scientists, engineers and programmers. Why would he do this? Because Gates and his allies understand the Law of supply and demand. That is why Gates demands higher and higher levels of tech savvy immigrants and outsources so much of his work to India.
I am no Luddite. I support a measured, appropriate introduction of new technology into schools. What I don’t support is a “technology at any cost” attitude or tech pushers creating super cozy relationships through “Learning Partnerships” “Tech-education fairs.”
Technology pushers are very unhappy about the slow introduction of technology as school boards struggle with budget slashers, school closings, and other downsizing moves. It is difficult to increase the IT share of decreasing board budgets but Directors and trustees also want to look “innovative” so they don’t want to oppose LCDs, SMART boards, and so on. There is pressure at the Toronto DSB to shift rapidly to e-books and dump text books. Stay tuned.
Thanks for the history lesson Doug, although it was very lacking on the American armed forces and their part in the building of the Internet. You do know, a lot of the history of computers is being taught at school. It does look like you agree to the status-quo, of the old outdated way of technology that leads to sky high operating costs.
I for one, is relieved to see the local schools which are in a rural area under the N-computing and virtual desktops. I had to look it up, to understand the meaning, and it confirms my own observations and a new understanding why things have so improve, compared to a few short years ago, dealing with antique technology. Just last week, my youngest reported to me that all the computers have been updated with Windows 7 and all have new keyboards. Much easier now to have a central server, and the rest dumbie desktops. One only needs one tech, making a trip to one server, rather than 50 computers. I even have a set-up like it, where the computer I am typing this on, is the main server for the rest of the computers in the house.
As for NL entering the brave world of N-computing, one can bet it is cost effective than the old ways, plus it opens up learning in multiple locations 24 hours, 7 days a week especially for students who are accessing long distance courses and are in need of remediation. It must be cost effective here in NL, because all schools are fully equipped, including the schools of 50 children or less. You name it, smart boards, e-books, LCD monitors, the latest Window system, and the list goes on. Teachers are equipped with lap tops, and it is not much of a chore sending assignments to the parent’s e-mail address, for students who are absent. Even my youngest if she wanted to could have her English novels in the e-book format, or for that matter any other text book. What I have heard is that the next phase will be e-book formats for all subjects, but the textbook will still be used in school. I can well imagine quite a few students leaving their text books in the locker, opting to read the e-book format at home, and in some cases print a few pages off.
So why the resistance of not moving to N-computing, because the old way makes far more money and creates more jobs than the new way of doing things. Also I believe, there is resistance to doing it the new way, because there is a lost of control by who is accessing school resources, and at what times. Also with new devices coming on line every six months or so, such as the newer notebooks that run in the same matter as i-pads or smart phone technology, they can sometimes over-ride security measures and get access to the school’s computer system. My youngest had such one device, that she was able to get on the Internet without seeking permission to get on and without using the password. Since than, the rules changed to reflect it, and that there is no need to seek permission, but don’t get caught on facebook or sending personal e-mails or there will be consequences.
As for Bill Gates and his Foundation, hats off to him because he put the smaller provinces ahead of the game when it comes to computing technology, plus the need to address and build the infrastructure needed. Hats off to the federal government and their grants in supplying monies to build the infrastructure, along with the the additional monies from the provincial governments. Hats off to almost finishing installing the fibre-optics cable in our two rural communities that in many communities in the bigger provinces cannot be bother to service for such a small population. Can’t wait to get rid of the land phone, and to reduce my monthly expenses in cable, phone and Internet to less than $100, and getting more services on top of that.
As you can see, Toronto of all places should be ashame of themselves for not keeping ahead of the technology curve, to make it as cost effective possible, for all students no matter what income level to access their computer anywhere and at any time. Even Newfoundland has a little program for cheap laptops for under $200 dollars. Apparently it is quite popular, for parents who are low-income. Why doesn’t the biggest school board have a similar program for their students and families? Does it really take smaller provinces who are struggling in meeting services to their residents, to show them how it is done in education?
first in regards to the entire thrust of Dr Bennett’s posting.
Absolutely All very true. The entire resistance to change in this region is what has landed us in the Global swamp for economic position and competitiveness. Nova Scotia is the most in debt territory in the Americas per capita.
IT efficiency in our schools is only the tip of the iceberg with what is wrong with our region. The message we send out is that government bureaucrats only know best while on the other hand the stewardship of their pensions has the taxpayer asked to pony up every couple of years to bail them out in the tune of Billions of dollars.
Nancy in regards to Notebook computers in the hands of students and teachers. If you indeed switched on Google alerts for “computers in school” you would find every 8th story being how a break and enter gang has stolen multiples of computers from the local school . It rotates from Australia , to Philadelphia to India to places across the globe.
Notebook computers for education beyond the teachers and Administrators is asking for muggings of students coming off the bus and huge support costs IE Broken computers either intentionally or not. Ask yourself would you trust your teenager to bring a notebook back to the school intact for 190 days of the school year ?
Why should the 70 percent of the taxpaying public who have no children in the schools have the liability of the reckless choices of these people? When was it that we became the shareholders of organizations so inefficient that no sane person would buy shares in a private company run like that ?
I am seeing a big movement towards Tablet PCs and the Ipad. I predict that this will be the new fenced device stolen from schools every weekend . Who is being held accountable for their bad choices ? Seems to me it is the taxpayers who ultimately suffer for these choices.
A Ncomputing Device, that also has a series of LG Network Monitors, is as little as 70 dollars per seat and has been tested with the Mean Average Breakage Times being 100,000 hours. A device that is less then a notebook battery for cost serves 4 million students daily in America for up to 14 (190 day) school years. Ethernet Cabling has not changed in the last 15 years and even with new Gigabit switching it is still essentially the same.
What Ncomputing and other virtual desktop devices allow us to do is skip massive refreshment expenditures saving financial resources perhaps for where it counts . The Teachers in the Classroom.
A desktop or notebook computer by comparison brand new has only one seventh the mean average breakage times and in many cases costs 70 percent more then the highest priced Ncomputing device priced at 260 dollars.
Our System relies heavily on JUNK that companies kindly discard avoiding tipping fees at the dumps. Many Many cases you have 30 CRT monitors with 30 Desktop CPUS in school Labs burning in excess of 6 KW. The simple choice of Lg Network Monitors has this down to 0.8 KW
A mass produced computer has component breakage of 15 percent in the first year of operation. that increases to 21 percent in the first year. Virtual Desktop Devices have an industry average of 1 percent while Ncomputing devices without heat generated , no flash ram compared with all other Virtual Desktops has a ultra low breakage in the first year of 0.2 percent .
Whats the cost of replacement ? 70 dollars for a new device ? A 3 year replacement warranty is there. These devices are so reliable that a large leasing company will lease for 5 years with a one dollar buy out at the end. Computers by comparison you can only get 3 year leases and then you are looking at huge cost packages for extended warranties.
As of note the largest Ncomputing deployment I know in Canada is in Medicine Hat Alberta and their Technology plan for the next 3 years states among other things More Ncomputing basically. Alberta and British Columbia have the highest test score results being above ours . I am not saying that the great spread of Ncomputing and other virtual desktop devices is solely responsible for those results. It is the environment in management that allows an Ncomputing and other innovations into those systems that indeed makes results happen.
You be the judge. Ignorance , arrogance or degrees of both. Stupidity or criminality I don’t know . Again you be the judge.
Mean While we continue to borrow to maintain a lifestyle and economy that will not be sustained in light that the rest of the world is moving to efficiencies like Ncomputing on mass. 480 schools in Punjab India the other day which exceeds the total of schools in our province .
Paul Taylor, the laptops for students are brought by the parents. I have to admit if anything, Newfoundlanders are technology junkies. Since the push to connect all communities, the rates to connect are inexpensive. I think it is at the 90 % mark for homes that are connected to the Internet. My youngest is the only one without a cell phone, but she is the only with the latest graphic calculator, that is no longer the newest model, since last week. As for crime, not much in this province to speak of, when it comes to stealing computers in school. Once in a while there has been break-ins, usually by the youth of the community, but even here is has been solve through the use of technology. When a school is fully secure, inside and outside with cameras, it has certainly cut down vandalism and break-ins to steal the cash at the main office.
Another thing about NL, is the push by parents to have the devices own by the students, to be permitted to used such devices in schools. I had been pushing it for a long time, since many students do not qualified under the rules regarding use of assisitive technology, and where the board will supply the devices. A e-reader would have come in handy in the early days, to improve my youngest fluency and vocabulary, as it would for other students with other learning problems. But it was not allow, until now. Even an electronic Franklin dictionary was not allowed, until now.
http://www.squidoo.com/kindleandfrustratedreaders
Technology is a saving grace,especially when one is in need of knowledge and help. It certainly help dealing with my youngest and her learning problems. And now, I could not think of a life without all my devices and computers.
Paul Taylor, as a parent with no special background in computers and in fact my own child now knows far more and she is teaching me, along with giving me updates on the newest tech devices on the market, I believe it is the duty of the public education system to stopped the resistance, and the old adage that only the educrats know best. The educrats were wrong about my child’s learning ability and potential, and they are wrong about their ham-fisted ways dealing with computing in schools and technology.
Here is a link that I came across this morning, on computers in school. ” I didn’t enjoy school very much. Occasionally, I had a teacher who would inspire me. But as an adult, as I began working with computer technology to tell stories through film, I began to wonder, “Why couldn’t we use these new technologies to help improve the learning process?”
Twenty years ago when we started the George Lucas Educational Foundation, we could see that digital technology was going to completely revolutionize the educational system, whether it liked it or not. Yet, in light of extraordinary advancements in how we use technology to communicate and learn, our schools and districts have been frustrating slow to adapt.”
http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/george-lucas-says-join-the-movement-to-transform-learning/
Well Nancy my argument is not with parents buying their children notebook computers because essentially via our high taxation we are whether we like it or not in some cases.
I have a problem with notebook computers being issued as Former Premier of New Brunswick Shawn Graham promised if re elected. 61,000 notebooks. We don’t need new entitlements and further layers of civil servants.
This type of thinking is directly connected to large computer makers seeing declining sales in both Business and Consumer markets in North America.
My parents bought myself and my siblings a Texas Instruments TI 99 4a in 1981 as my father was in the direct line of fire of learn how to use a computer as a night editor at the Halifax Herald or lose his job.
I would say rare is the household without a computer and internet if not multiple computers. In the United States it is common to see parents with education foundations buying the computers. Why not more bang for the buck in an eco friendly sustainable way ?
The Eastern European Republic of Macedonia has the world’s first nationwide one to one desktop to student deployment.
Macedonia has twice Nova Scotia’s population , 33 percent of the Annual GDP of Nova Scotia but only 25 percent of the debt of Nova Scotia. 200,000 students from Kindergarden to graduation will have their own desktop that will again last them from Kindergarden to Graduation or 13 years. Ironically I have the numbers on what is saved compared to the Model of a CPU per person in this country and Annually they will save in electricity alone what Chignecto Central was requested in the 22 percent exercise to cut from their budget for 3 years.
Who do you think will emerge with a highly skilled work force ? Do kid yourself that places like Macedonia are not using this technology to have everyone of these children learn the international business language English. It is happening across europe.
Here well we seem to want to have music editing tools in the hands of High Schoolers to become what ? JD Fortune who went from homeless Musician to having a credit card debt of 72,000 dollars to the Royal Bank ? All public domain.
Leave the artistic stuff out of the classroom and teach the realities of economics. It will serve us all much better in life.
Yes Digital technology is wonderful but not applied to teaching in the right way it is indeed a burden on budgets and resources outside the classroom.
“Yes Digital technology is wonderful but not applied to teaching in the right way it is indeed a burden on budgets and resources outside the classroom.”
Yes indeed, and made worse when the use of technology resources are implied incorrectly at the school level. The prevention of teachers accessing web resources, that are not the approve type of the ministry, but perfect for two students who has reading problems, and could do with a little bit of practice. Compounded by the resistance of schools to have students be able to practice at home, or at any location by entering the school’s system.
I certainly bumped into this starting in grade one, where getting extra practice sheets were denied, and by grade two, I ended up purchasing my first desktop computer. Since than, I have used and printed off reams off work sheets, to practice on the unapproved sites, but very helpful for my youngest to improve in her language and numeracy skills. As for software applications especially the kind that gives a lot of practice, have their own set of rules/regulation who is and who is not allow to use them on the school computers. I ran into this problem as well, until the school relented that she could take advantage of a math software program at lunch time. Score one for the school to prevent students accessing software applications by making the time available to use it on their lunch break. How many youngsters would do that? Not too many that I know.
Here is a present example of i-phone apps being used in one school.
“From a U.S. reviewer’s perspective, we tilt our hats to the north. Maybe Canadians are frozen all winter, but your programming is leading the category.”
And not just for tiny tots, who find using a keyboard and mouse awkward because they don’t have the necessary hand-eye coordination at that age.
Toronto teacher Steacie Carroll is using the touch-screen technology with her students aged 4 to 14 who have developmental disabilities.
She still uses the old standbys — puzzles, alphabet and number posters, books and building blocks — but sees the lights go on when her pupils get their mitts on the touch screens of an iTouch or iPad.
“It gets them to use their hands and minds together,” says Carroll, who teaches at Beverley Public School, a stone’s throw from Queen’s Park. “They can see cause and effect immediately.”
A favourite is the “Sound Shaker” app where kids press their fingers on the screen to make dots appear, playing a musical note. When they hold their fingers down the dots grow and play a scale of notes. Sounds are triggered by flinging the circles around and tilting the screen. If children hold their finger down through all the notes, the dot cracks open and a baby bird flies out.
“It fills them with glee every time a bird hatches,” says Carroll, who had Krogh to the school Friday.
None of this might have happened had Krogh, 38 and the father of a 16-month-old daughter, not hooked up with the provincial government’s Ontario Media Development Corporation.
It provided $100,000 in seed money to develop the series of Tickle Tap Apps, almost half the project budget, after Krogh hit the wall trying to pitch investors on the touch-screen concept for tots.
“We had a few people who couldn’t wrap their heads around a pre-schooler holding a $750 iPhone, but with emerging technology you need to move fast,” says Krogh, who calls the government cash infusion “absolutely fundamental.”
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/newsfeatures/article/934673–iphone-apps-a-hit-with-preschoolers
On touch screens, I have to admit since I acquired one for my youngest, she is doing at least 60 % of her homework on the touch screen desktop. Including writing notes in her own hand, and figuring out math calculations on the screen using her hand. Her note taking has improved quite a bit, including spelling and grammar, using all the apps. Which in turn has raise her English grade, because her mechanics of writing has improved. I rarely do heavy editing of her written reports, and as for recent tests/exams I have to say at least she is finally passing with a C plus or just a little bit more, where writing issues are seen due to her learning disability. And the good news is that she is being graded as if if she is a regular student. In this way, it gives my youngest the motivation to improve on her learning weaknesses on her own, providing she has access to resources and technology to do just that.
Here is another area that is only started to be developed in some schools in Canada. The potential of e-readers to addressed reading problems.
“Fluency and Vocabulary
Indeed, there’s a real need for professional development to accompany the reading devices, says Larson. “I don’t think the e-reader in itself is going to make a difference, but if it’s used with effective instruction, then it can make a huge difference,” she says.
Through her research using e-readers with 2nd graders and special education students, Larson predicts the devices could help facilitate fluency and vocabulary development.
For instance, Larson noticed that some of the students in the classes she studied used the e-readers’ built-in dictionary feature not just to look up definitions of words, but also to view pronunciation and chunking, which is the way the word is broken up into syllables.
“Right there, that’s a fluency tool,” she says.
The ability of some e-readers to insert notes into the text could also be a helpful teaching tool, says Larson.
“If you take the time to actually look at the notes [that students make in the digital readers], you know what they’re thinking, and you can accurately assess what they really understand,” she says. “It’s almost like having a glimpse into their brain.”
Still, much more research must be done before the devices are ready for mainstream use in education, she says.
“[E-readers] have the most amazing potential, but they’re so new in terms of formal studies that there isn’t a whole lot that has been done yet,” Larson says. “Within the next year or two, we’ll have some more evidence.”
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/10/20/01dyslexia.h04.html
Why is IT so Sacrosanct?
It isn’t. It’s another money grab by corporations.
Andrew Gilmour
Why is IT so Sacrosanct?
It isn’t. It’s another money grab by corporations.
Well yes. It is not that we don’t need new technology in schools but the school officials have bought into quite a few white elephants in the past (TDSB went all in on BETA just before the rest of the world went VHS). Hand me downs are no solution but the “tech pushers” are frustrated that, with radical decline in budgets, school closings, buildings falling apart, radical underfunding, that the schools do not have the budget to purchase as much as the corporations want to sell. Boo hoo.
It is time for the corporations to demand that the governments fund the schools at something close to a needs basis. We literally need billions more in Ontario to fix the schools, keep the lights on etc. We cannot blame Harris forever although he gutted the system. McGuinty has had lots of time to fix it.
I would said a lot more white elephants in the curriculum and resources that could be discarded for better systematic instruction methods, and textbooks that actually teachers actually used, along with the students. Throw in better software applications, including the open source types instead of the hard to use, often more expensive that is suitable for a smaller percentage of the school population. One can demand more money for the schools, but in big provinces like Ontario, the neglect of the infrastructure especially in schools, and in other parts of Ontario, makes it difficult to spend the money wisely, when the need is so great, built on a foundation of old technology and high salaries, who are in charge of the purse strings. But to asked the corporations, to pushed for more money, is akin to asking the unions to let go some of their perks, and in lieu of raises, and put the money back into the school system. Doubtful that will ever happen, nor will the unions used their political campaigning for such things as improvements in school computing or curriculum. Both rather keep the status-quo, to extract the greatest amount of money, to retained their profits or in the case of unions, to retain their power and perks. Whatever crumbs are left, is sorted out with the bit players, including the students.
Teacher campaigns in education are always directed at the underfunding of the entire system.
“Underfunding education is child abuse” was the classic that got the Tories attention.
Naturally smaller classes (good for kids) means more teachers (good for teachers). The interests of the 2 are totally congruent.
But the solutions are more studies, more consultants, more reports and… a bigger, fatter bureaucracies, bloated school board offices and no budget left for the classrom.
Small classes or large classes, there is a little problem of poor curriculum, and other resources such as the lack of computers or software, that will kill any good derive from small classes. Throw in the lack of resources in the school library, all is accomplished is a the additional staff, whose needs must be met, and the crumbs left off for the other resources. Will it be new books for the library, or the addition of a computer in the grade 1 class, or will the students have to make do with the resources given for another year. Unions go after things that directly impacts their members and where small classes are wanted, because of the direct impact in increases in teachers being added on to the staff. One only uses that it will benefit the kids, because it does. How it does can be debated, since most schools are resource poor to begin with or without small classes. The teachers still have the problem of the lack of resources and tools that they need to teach any class effectively. It is often the case, that children who bordering in the 50 % something, are the very ones that could benefit greatly from resources that the educrats make very scarce by putting controls over. It gets pretty bad, when my own youngster’s teachers’ in primary grades, would used their own money, to buy certain books that my child and other children could actually read, without them looking like a picture book or a baby book.
Until teachers’ campaigns go after the real culprit, the lack of resources in all areas, the obvious lack of resources in the lower-income schools, the equity issues, what makes anyone think that the resource problem will clear up on its own, even if they won the war on more money in the system. One will still see about 40 % of the kids coming out of grade 3 with reading levels below grade 3, and not at the grade 4 or very near the grade 4 level.
How did they all catch up by grade 10? Canada has the second highest literacy rate in the world of 15 year olds.
If we actually involved ourselves heavily in what is usually called compensatory education, targetting overwhelming amounts of resources, human and material, on the 20% of the schools that really need the help, we could still make enormous gains and propell ourselves into the world’s first place by far.
Look at First Nations education. This is a total national disgrace and should shame every last one of us. First Nations are less than 4% of the populaton but probably 15-20% of the kids in severe educational distress.
While most kids of the age of 15 can passed the PISA test, and since only a small percentage of randomly selected students take the test, the odds are with Canada, that they be in the top 10. Since the difficulty of the test is much easier than the many other assessments that are available, even my own youngster could pass the test with flying colours. Too bad, they do not bother to check spelling, grammar and structure of the written portion, than perhaps Canada will take a nose dive.
Those 40 % have not caught up by grade 10 either. Most of them are in the applied stream, or sitting in the academic stream, just barely passing. For the lucky few that did catch up, the credit can probably go to private tutoring and the few that actually does get the correct help at the school, to improved their learning. Since the percentage of students going to university has not change much since the 1980s, which is currently about 24 % of the grade 12 graduates, one can assumed that this group of students have better reading and writing skills that are good enough for that level. The other 75 % of students either go to college or straight into the work force. The ones that do go to college, are sorted out where some end up taking upgrading for the next two years, to improve their writing and numeracy skills, before they can enter their choice of courses. Remember Doug, there is final outcomes that are generally ignored by the public education system of K to 12, and in one area the very low numbers of LD students sitting in academic and advance high school classes. There should be big numbers, but most of them did not get the proper help in their reading and writing in the first place. The few that are in academic and advance, have parents that had the means and ability to help their kids to succeed.
As for compensatory education, I had to look up the term, and discovered it has been around since the 1960s. Rather hard to find updated articles on compensatory education, but I did find some and all of the criticizing compensatory education.
“Compensatory education policies are intended to offset the effects of socio-economic disadvantage which may restrict the educational opportunities of children from socially deprived backgrounds. In practice the policies focused originally upon the assumed cultural deprivation of black children in the USA [as in the Operation Head Start Programme] and working class children in the UK [as in the Education Priority Area Programme] and have consequently attracted criticism from sociologists who argued strenuously against the concept of cultural deprivation. It may perhaps be argued that later compensatory education policies such as Sure Start, Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities Programmes, Educational Maintenance Allowances and the Aim Higher Scheme are based less upon the concept of cultural deprivation and more on improving pre-school facilities, improving the schools themselves and providing financial help and advice designed to give socially disadvantaged children a fairer chance to fulfil their ambitions. However despite these policies reductions in inequalities of educational attainment have been limited.”
http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/compensatoryed.html
In the Wikipedia, “Compensatory Education offers supplementary programs or services designed to help children at risk of cognitive impairment and low educational achievement reach their full potential”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensatory_Education
The original term is the Wikipedia one, that has more or less been change to address the needs of low-income students. And yet, even with this change, the term compensatory education is being used by the educrats for any student that is receiving extra services over and above the set amount of funding per student. Again, the major criticism of compensatory education, is that the curriculum, reading and numeracy instruction of the public education is the source of the poor showing of results when funding is poured into programs to support the low-income students. Without fundamental changes to instruction and curriculum, moving to more systematic direct approaches, and away from whole language or whatever name that they are calling whole language, one will get the same results at the end of grade 3. At least 40 % of students below the grade 3 level, entering into grade 4.
Moving onto software applications for students who are receiving a compensatory education, there is rather a poor selection for software, that actually would addressed weaknesses in reading, writing and numeracy. And plenty of regulation and micro-managing by the educrats, to ensure that there is a poor selection to address educational weaknesses.
Andrew Gilmour
But the solutions are more studies, more consultants, more reports and… a bigger, fatter bureaucracies, bloated school board offices and no budget left for the classrom.
Andrew, the solution is not based on moving scarce money around within education.
Where do we get the revenue to run the school?
1) Tax corporations more. Not a lot more but a little more. We have lower taxes already than all of our major trade competitors.
2) Tax people who make more than $250 000 more. They can afford it.
3) Do not expand jail construction when the crime rate is falling
4) Do not buy jet planes that we don’t need.
Spending on education actually saves money in the overall economy and the more you spend the more you save.
Might help if you didn’t confuse federal jurisdiction with provincial.
It’d be interesting to determine who’d be qualified to determine “needs-based funding for education.”
As to “the more you spend the more you save” there’s no way of knowing that until you determine how well the money is being used. Funding more of the raging excesses we’ve seen in the past only perpetuates sloth and indifference.
Your raging excesses is someone else’s absolute necessity.
I would be prepared to can, French Immersion, IB and most of gifted programs. I expect that you might get an argument from others that these programs are critical.
In the meantime, we are stuck deciding these things democratically.
Detroit is headed for classes of 60 in high school and closing half there schools. Is that what you are looking for John?
The teacher bashing over at SQE seems to be driving away all of the teachers who support a “reform” approach to curriculum and pedagogy. How about some of that?
“The teacher bashing over at SQE seems to be driving away all of the teachers who support a “reform” approach to curriculum and pedagogy. How about some of that?”
Of course nothing close to the truth. Did you see TVO last evening to see Ms. Kidder and Ms. Coulter climb down from their objection to more choice for parents? No?
Choice is winning the day.
If spending money on education actually saves money, than why are programs meant for a certain segment of the population, are pulled, as soon as the student is improving, and than kick back into the inclusive classroom. When children do not finished the specialized programs that take up to three years to complete, providing that they have 3 hours per week of slotted time, it usually means that their learning weaknesses being addressed will stopped improving, or actually regress to an earlier condition. As for future costs of schooling, it increases on the side of accommodations, different instruction, and could include making room for another in the SE class. The chances of a student that has been pulled from a specialized program without finishing the program, puts the student at very high risk for dropping out, not achieving – the very things that the public education system wants to stopped.
No amount of increase funding, will not increase achievement, unless there is major changes made to the misapplication of resources, bottle-necks accessing educational services, stopping early pull-out when the weaknesses have not been addressed effectively, and the funding formula, along with the tax situation.
I assume you mean F-35s and jail construction, which is the territory of the feds, and jail construction is highly dependent on the laws being made at the federal level. As for taxing more on incomes higher than $250,000, it will not finance the education system, since at this income level, there is far fewer people making $250,000 compared to the majority who fall well under the $250,000 mark.
As John has stated, “As to “the more you spend the more you save” there’s no way of knowing that until you determine how well the money is being used. Funding more of the raging excesses we’ve seen in the past only perpetuates sloth and indifference.”
A good place to start, is the waste occurring in special education. If a private tutor company operated in the same way as the public education system, it would not have any customers.
And Doug we are justified to do so and criticized the public education system. The extra funding spent on my child in the last 9 years, could have been better spent by giving me the money, to locate a private tutor to do what the public schools could not do in the last 9 years, have my child become proficient in reading and writing, within 3 years. She would be considered a piece of cake by private services, and yet the simple everyday garden variety of reading and writing problems of children, within the public education system are a real problem for the educrats. The longer one delays correct reading and writing help, the more time and money is spent in the not so near future.
The facinating thing Nancy is that you are so convinced that you are correct but there are so very few people supporting your cause.
Believe me I sat through endless educational hearings at the TDSB and the legislature. Nobody EVER comes forward there or in the mainstream media to demand your version of changes to pedagogy or curriculum.
If there’s any evidence Ontario is moving toward classes of 60 or closing half the schools it’d be useful to show it here.
As has been pointed out, repeatedly, making all sorts of dubious claims that fly in the face of reality isn’t useful.
As to “teacher bashing” at SQE I suspect most of the teachers being driven away (how many?) simply tried to dominate the discussion; certainly there are still enough there to represent teacher POV.
As to what constitutes “raging excess” consider the audits done opf the TDSB, Hamilton-Wentworth and Ottawa-Carlton done some years ago. How does excessive absenteeism or spending on things even trustees can’t explain benefit kids?
Do some work and report back.
By the by, things look pretty moribund over at The Little Education Report. Why not work on your site rather than hanging out everywhere else?
Yep, it’s everybody’s fault except the school boards.
don’t expect any accounting for his words here John L.
When he can’t back up his claims Doug usually resorts to playing politics. It’s not a matter of if, but when…count on it.
There was a direct result of the Harris policies and the increase in absenteeism. He failed to understand that attacks on teachers creates classic alienation so that employees who are attacked begin to do less not more. They involve themselves in fewer extra curricular activities and they take more days off. People do more when they feel it is appreciated. You get more bees with honey than vinegar.
When you attempt to restrict teacher prep time the same amount of marking and planning needs to be done so teachers simply stay at home more often. Classic resistance techniques.
see….didn’t have to wait too long for it.
The only thing Harris failed to do was make more drastic changes and move to choice more quickly in his mandate than he did.
Not to mention that once again we’re totally off topic.
I guess 3 teachers were driven away, TDSBNW who knows far more about education than anyone else at SQE, Wayne Ng who could supply a small city slightly union alienated perspective and one more Stephen?
Certainly attacks on the livlihood of the teachers showed that reformers are not simply interested in pedagogy and choice but in fact are the Trojan Horse for the total privatization of the system.
What are the certain attacks on the livelihood’s of teachers, Doug? Would it be OK to talk about unions? In the NP today, rather interesting development? Now do not jump on me, since I just delivering new information.
“A labour board decision allowing a Saskatchewan woman to opt out of becoming a union member because of her religious beliefs has raised new questions about why the same right is not extended to all Canadians.
“This [decision] highlights how everybody else is being refused a right that should be universal rather than specifically religious,” said Niels Veldhuis, a senior economist at the Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank. “You want to give the power to workers to decide for themselves whether it’s in their best interest to become a member of a union or pay membership dues.”
A 24-year-old woman told the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board that her Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs forbid her from joining trade unions, a denominational tradition that reaches back to the turn of the last century. The board accepted her arguments in February but said her dues would still be collected and then diverted to a charity.”
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/03/02/religious-exemption-rekindles-debate-over-union-membership/
I had no idea that, “The federal government and most provinces have religious opt-out clauses from union membership.”
Interesting development in Canada, the push for union members to have the right, ” to hold back that percentage of their dues that is being donated on their behalf to political parties and social causes they do not support.”
But the idea to donate union dues to a charity, might catch on to a sector of union members.
Nancy – you should know by now that when folks begin to disagree with Doug he pulls the whole “teacher-bashing” thing out of his “old standby union talking points” notes.
Perhaps Saskatchewan’s on to something.
Let teachers opt out of who’s representing them.
Nobody needs to be a union member in Ontario, but they must pat the dues because they benefit from the negoatitions. If not, non union members must take lower wages and benefits.
The don’t “must” do anything. If the employer is willing to pay the same salary/benefit packiage then so be it. If not, they can negotiate a different package.
Banks donate my money every year to causes I don’t support. You act like this has not been to the Supreme Court twice. The unions won.
Workers vote on the union, the democratic way right. They can vote to decertify as well. No worries. The overwhelming number of union members are there by choice.
The governor of Wisconsin wants workers to vote every year on whether to keep the union. I support this. The workers know their wages, benefits and pensions would collapse without the union.
Last time I check, a bank is a private enterprise, and like all private concerns, will donate money after profits and operating expenses. Big difference between unions dues going in part to finance political campaigns/social causes, and private donations from businesses.
Completely ignoring that one person in Canada, inserted her rights, and the ruling went in her favour, that her union dues, will be donated to charity, due to religious beliefs. And she still benefits of the wages that is negotiated on the union’s behalf. The next logical step, is that to have the right to withheld a percentage of dues, that go to causes and political campaigns that a union member disagrees with. This is where I believe a large number of union members will do just that, until unions stopped working for causes that really do not benefit unions members in the long run.
Perhaps political campaigns would now be directed at issues such as building the infrastructure needed in schools, that will require a number of players, including the big telecommunications guys. Someone has to get the main players in a room, to sort it out, because the old methods are not working anymore. Computer technology is here to stay, and is now part of a student’s life and school work.
Interesting to consider how the added cost of covering increased absenteeism, apparently to punish Harris, results in better education for kids.
Sorta the adult version of holding one’s breath until getting one’s way…
Kids got slapped in the face and lost resources because teachers didn’t like Harris.
“Classic resistance techniques”, fought on the backs of kids, speaks poorly of “professionals”.
Last time I looked Nancy a union is a private organization as well which is why the Supreme Court says they can do what they want. I’m not sure you, as an outsider, actually know what a union is.
Doug,
If you have something of value to add by all means do so but your condescending attitude is becoming a serious annoyance.
Are you always such a jerk?
Actually, I know more than I would like to about unions, since I had a front row seat, dealing with the nasty strikes of GM in the 50s and 60s. Although just a kid, my father did his part, and you should be down on your knees thanking the forefathers of private unions, that fought the hard battles in work safety, wages, and benefits. Public sector unions are reaping the benefits, that private unions fought so hard to obtain.
And I’ve seen the nasty side of unions in the form of the construction trades unions in Quebec.
The growth of public sector unions benefited greatly from the labour strikes of the private sector after WWII, and many of the strike and negotiation strategies were developed from the private unions, to which public sector unions of today are now using with great gusto. In Canada, more so because important gains made by private unions, eventually laws were enacted by politicians that increase the quality of life for all Canadians. But that was in the days, when steel reign supreme, and auto workers and other private unions, were paid very close attention by governments because they had the power to shut down vast areas of the economy.
It is why, I do not like the tactics of teachers’ unions getting gains on the backs of children. Politicians only pay close attention to the public sector unions, because it can shut down government operations, and they are not to worried about the inconvenience of the public. And they always used children to do just that.
Private sector unions have to deal with the fallout if they price themselves out of the market; there are alternatives for their clients.
Public sector unions don’t have the need to be competitive and fight any effort to offer alternatives, Witness the howls of outrage at the prospect of non-Public System schools or non-unioized workers. From their perspective it makes sense however the claims that it shows their committment to the kids gets a bit tiresome.
Doug,
If you have something of value to add by all means do so but your condescending attitude is becoming a serious annoyance.
Are you always such a jerk?
My open was designed to match Nancy’s opening exactly.
You can try to draw distinctions between private and public unions but economist know that the role of public sector unions is to create a middle class life for Canadians and Americans.
By being the first to demand and receive good salaries benefits and pensions, the public sector unions create an environment where private employers must raise wages benefits and pensions in order to compete for labour and thus everybody wins.
I well remember growing up in Owen Sound and, although a few plants were organized, it was still a depressed area. Unions worker did a little better than other but not great. Then the Ontario (Tory) government decided to build the Bruce nuclear power plant and there was a huge number of new unionized jobs in the area. Busses left from Owen Sound, Wiarton, Port Elgin Southampton, and other towns every day to bus workers to good union jobs at the Bruce near Kincardine. Workers were quiting their other jobs to get these great CUPE jobs. All of a sudden raises that people had been denied for any years came forward and wages in all factories rose.
This was fabulous and had a dramatic positive effect on the entire region.
This is the role of public sector unions and our excellent standard of living of our middle class canadians all came from unions, public and private.
-Actually the vast majority of workers aren’t in unions so
the claim that they drove up salaries for all workers is
pretty dubious
-The percentage of workers in public sector unions has
been increasing while private sector union members is
declining.
-Private sector unions were in place long before public
sector unionsso the claim that they drove up salaries and
alledgedly, put such pressure on employers
to improve is incorrect.
-Private sector unions exist in a very different world than
public sector unions; if they get uncompetitive they lose
member jobs. Public sector unions have no such issues.
Apart from all that Doug is spot on.
The moral is that doing research on a topic and not repeating the party line is a good thing.
Well said John, but the only thing I would like to add, is that nuclear power is highly regulated and fells under the federal jurisdiction. Union workers where the main player is the federal government, including the sailors that sail the Great Lakes and the seaway, are union members must meet the mandates, qualifications, and certification under federal jurisdiction, and not provincial levels. Otherwise, there are not public sector workers, but formed part of the private sector unions, and most of them worked for private companies. The federal government played a major role in the 1970s, to update and maintain high standards that workers must meet, in order to work in a work place that was under federal jurisidiction. Quite a few battles were played out here, and once again public sector unions are enjoying the hard won battles of those unions.
Again, to bring it back on topic that public sector unions are so far removed from reality, demanding more sick days, and whatever extra perks, one does not have to wonder why garbage or transit strikes last a long time, while the public puts up with the inconvenience and probably more money extracted out of their pocket at the end of the strike, along with more regulations of the thou shall not laws. What really gets to me, while private union workers adjust to the reality, and continued to focus on the products being produced, one does not see them taking union dues to go after causes that the public unions have a habit to attached themselves. As you have said, public sector unions do not have to be competitive, since they are the only game in town.
The very least they can do, work to improve the public services and it is here in the public sector of the smaller provinces seem to do a much better job knowing that results matter, in the next negotiations dealing with contracts. In NL, it is rare coming from the teachers’ union, of the simple demand of more money, and they too acknowledged that the public education system has to be reformed, to do a better job in addressing the needs of today’s students. The government sees part of the answer is using computer technology effectively for their students. A province that is vast in its area and geography, computer technology has been a god-sent for a population that is thinly scattered in the bays and inlets of NL.
Getting a bit off topic here.
Workers don’t have to be in unions for PS workers to drive up their wages, simple supply and demand means good PS wages drives up all wages.
PS workers get laid off all the time. This includes teachers in the USA and a lesser etent in Canada.
You can continue to attack the police, firefighters, EMS workers nurses, teachers, soldiers, all you want but they are every bit as valuable as any private workers, they contribute just as much to the national well being, in fact more valuable in most cases.
Attacks on PS workers will destroy the middle class in Canada and return us to a world of only rich and poor as our friends to the south are determined to do.
Transit strikes last a long time Nancy? Are you kidding.
Say whatever you want, the attacks on teachers standard of living over at SQE has driven the teachers out of the reform movement.
The head of DFER, the section of the Democratic Party in the USA that supports charters, testing etc has just announced that what the Wisconsin governor is doing is totally wrong so indulge but be aware that attacks on teachers split and fray what little there is of a reform sympathetic movement within “the system”.
The pendulum will swing back and when it does, it will be with a vengeance.
Say whatever you want, the attacks on teachers standard of living over at SQE has driven the teachers out of the reform movement.
I don’t recall any “attacks on teachers standard of living” over at SQE. There are plenty of teachers in favour of reforms. Of course the “reform movement” is nothing like so homogeneous as you are suggesting. Teachers who identify as “reformers” tend to focus on curriculum and instruction as key factors in effective change.
An excellent, but by no means singular, spokesman for this point of view is Core Knowledge’s Robert Pondiscio, who taught for some years in a low-SES school in the Bronx. Some worthwhile pieces of his:
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/12/24/the-fierce-urgency-of-eventually/
http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2010/09/11/interview-of-the-month-robert-pondiscio-from-core-knowledge/
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2009/10/15/curriculum-more-reform-for-less-money/
Educhatter, by its very nature, is ragged, erratic and definitely idiosyncratic. We like it that way, but I periodically have to appeal to our zealous commentators to stay on topic.
When I posted Information Technology in Schools as a topic, I did not expect it to devolve into another “war of words” over trade unionism in education.
A recent Education Week column, written by Sean Cavanagh, puts it best:
“In War of Words, ‘Reform’ a Potent Weapon
The rhetoric of education today tends to divide the world in two: between those who favor “reform” and those who don’t.
Many who consider themselves reformers say they stand in opposition to the “status quo.” Some of them speak of the need to challenge the “education establishment,” or the education bureaucracy. Many also describe their policies as putting the needs of children and students first, as opposed to the ideas favored by their critics, who by implication are focused mostly on the concerns of adults.
A set of stock phrases, sound bites, and buzzwords has come to dominate the public discourse on education, summoned reflexively, it often seems, by elected officials and advocates who speak a shared, accepted language.
The current lexicon groups one set of policies—which generally includes support for charter schools, tougher standards and testing, evaluating and paying teachers based on performance, and challenges to teachers’ unions on traditional job protections—under the favorable heading of reform. Resistance to those ideas is often branded as misguided at best, and obstructionist at worst.”
Educational debate, as Brian Crittenden warned us years ago, can descend into rather hollow sloganeering.
The Educhatter challenge – let’s try to focus on the posted issues. If we don’t raise our game, we all risk being characterized as either shrill propagandists or members of the “nattering class.”
Spot on.
Furthermore, the polarization of two absolutes serves little to improving the deteriorating public education.
“Teachers who identify as “reformers” tend to focus on curriculum and instruction as key factors in effective change. ”
From my own observations, I agree that the front-line teachers do focus on curriculum and instruction as key factors in effective change. But as I have discovered, the further one goes up in levels, there is far less and less focus on curriculum and instruction methods.
As Robert Pondisco states, “It is not my intention to single out Michelle Rhee. She is merely the most vocal and visible representative of a theory of change that sees structures, and increasingly political power, as the coin of the realm. I have no illusions: Education reform may be sexy, but curriculum is not. It doesn’t get you on Oprah or the cover of Newsweek. We are unlikely, now or ever, to see a bold initiative to raise one billion dollars to advocate for a coherent, knowledge-rich curriculum for every child in the early grades, even though, for high-mobility, low-income children in particular, it would surely be among the most impactful reforms we could offer.”
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/12/24/the-fierce-urgency-of-eventually/
” In his latest Letter on Education, Whitehurst lays out an argument that should catch the eye of everyone who is focused on charter schools, teacher quality, early childhood ed and standards as the means of boosting student achievement. He looks at the effect sizes of those reforms and reports curriculum effects have a much greater impact than all of them:” http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2009/10/15/curriculum-more-reform-for-less-money/
Real pity that curriculum is more about politics and ideology, rather than the foundational and building skills that are essential for deep understanding, and comprehension. I believe it is the present curriculum that has led to lower achievement among our students. Where textbooks are busied pages filled with disconnected facts, that often leads students not having a deep understanding in order to moved to the next level. It is what I had found with my youngest, where she spending a good portion of her classroom time, not learning, because the beginning of the lesson, started off with higher knowledge learning, with the fundamental knowledge that is necessary to understand the higher knowledge levels sprinkled here and there throughout the lesson, or in a unit section.
It is where the computer technology and its tools, became a very important element in my household. I could not change the curriculum on my own, but with the help of the Internet, I improved my child’s achievement levels, her comprehension, her note taking, deep understanding of subject material, and most important, she was learning in class. How? I undertook the task of rewriting units of social studies, science, math to where the fundamental knowledge or the lower learning facts were place first, and than the connecting of higher knowledge to the fundamentals. I soon found out, that the Internet became my best friend, where it cut down the amount of time spent at home, trying to reconfigured the textbooks, when I could simply cut and paste where lower facts were first than the connecting of the higher knowledge facts. It was music in my ears, to hear complaints and objections, because I had the opportunity to point out increased achievement, along with increase participation and rarely was my youngest lost among the disconnected knowledge facts. She had her trusted summary notes to refer to, and space within the notes – to stress important connections to the fundamentals.
When I approached the upper levels, the educrats were the ones that did not like what I was doing at home. Apparently, I was not teaching my youngest to become an independent learner, and my response was that my youngest needed to be taught using specific strategies and where knowledge is presented from lower facts to higher facts. The educrats had many other reasons, but underneath it all, it was to defend the progressive ideology and dogma that is so very much part of the present day curriculum.
I believed it is another reason why software apps, and other educational sites, are frown upon by the educrats, because they do not follow the progressive practices, ideology and dogma. They are firm believers of progressive ideology and Dewey-speak, and it certainly shows how school computing is being used in the schools.
If you trace it back, we started seriously off the rails March 1 at 4:22 PM.
To answer TDSB. I think it is clear to you and Wayne Ng and others now that the SQE core people want a sustained Wisconsin attack on teachers standard of living pensions, benefits and wages. At their core they are not interested in the reform of instruction in the public system. They want to privatize the public system.
Thanks Paul for your reminder. However I don’t believe Doug truly understands the gist of your message. His recent post took a shot at SQE, so perhaps a little background information might help those unfamiliar with Doug’s previous posts on School for Thought. Hrre is an example:
” The federations give hundreds of thousands of dallars annually to the Liberals and the NDP. This does not count even more to the “Working Families Coalition” and other progressive organizations. They also mobilize thousands of volunteers across Ontario for provincial and municipal elections. They heavily triage the seats putting their maximum efforts into the 30 or so seats that are likely to change hands between the parties. They consider the Tories to be the Anti-Christ in Ontario politics and so everything is geared to keeping them out. That does not mean they are happy this the other 2 parties. They continue to work on those parties issue by issue.” (Posted by Doug on 04/06 at 07:32 AM)
That shows how involved the Ontario teacher unions are in trying to determine the election results.
The last time I check, teachers’ unions rarely focuses on curriculum. The closest it comes to changes being made are on new values such as inclusive instruction, and very little concern on the actual content of the curriculum. It is rather ironic, to go on the Canadian teachers’ union sites and search for curriculum. One gets all types of ‘value’ curriculum, such as this from Ontario, called Exploring Issues of Homelessness. http://www.etfo.ca/Resources/ForTeachers/Documents/An%20Excerpt%20from%20Home%20Free%20-%20Exploring%20issues%20of%20homelessness.pdf
Or another titled called, A practical Guide to Exploring Issues of Media Violence. http://www.etfo.ca/Resources/ForTeachers/Documents/Take%20a%20Closer%20Look%20-%20A%20Practical%20Guide%20to%20Exploring%20Media%20Violence%20in%20the%20Intermediate%20Classroom.pdf
But not one topic, on the actual curriculum content, the structure of the text book, and instruction methods. But as I said, lots on values. Although I could not find Canadian articles that actually spoke of curriculum, without the value material being attached to it, there is lots in the America media, and education blogs.
Here is a typical example, that is now creeping into the public education system. “As part of our district’s January 2009 celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell sent a letter to her “colleagues” that included the text of her welcome address for the Unity March. In part, she said:
“We renew our commitment to acknowledging the effects of white privilege and doing all that we can to understand and mitigate its effects – so that each of us understands race in a personal and profound way.
“We renew (our) commitment to creating classrooms, schools, and a school district that is founded on the principles of social justice … a compassionate system that knows each child.
“We renew our commitment to the development of culturally proficient and courageous educators who can succeed with all students because they believe in the value of each student.”
Dr. Stowell didn’t mention creating classrooms that are founded on the principles of a coherent and rigorous education. She didn’t mention renewing the district’s commitment to hiring academically proficient educators who can succeed with all students because they know the subject matter they’re trying to teach. ”
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-public-education-for.html
White privilege, are now values creeping into the curriculum, and instruction. Mandates of values by the educrats in the rarefied levels of the public education system, and is helped along the way by the teachers’ unions adjusting their goals and aims, to fit in the new ‘values’, without a concern, or debate that this is not teaching knowledge, but rather teaching morals and values, in place of fundamental knowledge that is needed to know, before learning advance knowledge.
As the author of the blog states, “So far, the education bureaucracy appears to be largely unwilling to address the biggest problem facing our public schools: The lack of core academic content – in much of the teacher training, in much of the curriculum, and in the daily focus of the typical classroom.
Some parents are coping with the educational shipwreck by deciding that sloshing through the water is OK. “Maybe she doesn’t have to work that hard,” one parent said recently about her daughter. “Academics aren’t everything.”
Others seek academic excellence (or even just academic competence) for their children by choosing to homeschool or to supplement at home (as we do) or by heading to charter schools, magnet programs, faith-based schools, private schools or co-ops.
I support these decisions. There is no guarantee that alternative choices will provide children with the best education possible, but we must allow for the most basic right Americans have: The freedom to choose the process. We have the right to choose to fail, and we have the right to choose to excel. It’s that flexibility that has traditionally made America strong. ”
Part of the problem is that unions while looking after their best interests, which as it should be, are focus on meeting the wishes and desires of the ministry, and in part the school boards. All to be used for future purposes of negotiations, and to support unions’ pet projects. However curriculum issues such as the lack of core curriculum content, and the basic structure of textbooks is not an issue that the top brass of the union concerns themselves with, even though it is as I believe, one of the most important factors in the education of our children. And yet, it is the lack of focus on curriculum, that is driving choice decisions being made by parents, and the demand of more choice. And more than likely helping to also increase the privatization of the public education system, or in another way, increase attention from private sources that are making up for the weaknesses in curriculum.
It is not the mandate of the federations to “produce” curriculum although this is debated internally. They do, however, sit on Ministry and board committees and have a strong input at that level. The Ministries would not dream of putting out new curiculum without fairly heavy federation consultation.
I for one, fought this issue for many years. The federations will put out curriculum where they see gaps (Labour history…) in the curriculum. OSSTF is in the process of producing a curriculum document that fairly treats “Proportional Representtion and FPTP the present voting system, as an example. I began that before I left.
I advocated for “Teachers’ guides” for many years. “How to teach Macbeth…how to teach grade 10 history, how to teach grade 9 French, stuff like that. Some was done, most fell on deaf ears.
So you’re another one who is into micro-management. I see that as being one of the major causes of the deterioration of public education.
Properly trained and motivated teachers don’t need a bunch of how-to manuals produced by another level of educrats.
Let the teachers teach.
Let the principals administer.
Let the board staff look after refueling the busses or something.
The American conservative education community is incredibly divided on “national standards” . People like Checker Finn and the TB Forham group favour “high national standards” as the only salvation for a nation slipping every year.
Conservative states, especially the ones where cousins marry, are deathly opposed to national standards for a series of reasons.
1) National standards = national testing.
2) The NAEP the closest thing to national testing, shows very clearly that conservative states (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, …….) lag significantly behind liberal states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, ….).
3) With national standards there will be no more right wing extremist history taught in Texas, “liberals” OMG will have a lot to say about standards. There will not be “Red state tet books and blue states text books”.
4) The conservative states will be exposed as the laggards in education. The liberal, highly unionized states will be shown to be well ahead educationally over the conservative, non-union Right-to-Work” states.
Conclusion? Forcing high national standards on American education may well kill conservative approaches to education.
Doug, the last post shows your true colours that everything is run through your political ideology meter. The left side has its fair share, if not more ideology and blurring of facts and topping it off to add values and morals that become more important than the actual knowledge. A typical science book, can turned a piece on condensation into a tale of man destroying the planet at the end of lesson. Or a math lesson can turned into a busied group project on the trash produced by one family, and how one family can save the world. National standards is not the same as the Core Knowledge curriculum. As outlined on the Core Knowledge site, “The National Governors Association Center and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) partnered on a state-led initiative to develop common standards for mathematics and English language arts.
Forty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards to date.
The terms “standards” and “curriclum” are often—and erroneously—used as synonyms for one another. Standards define what children should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. A curriculum specifically describes what children need to learn to meet those standards.
The Common Core State Standards leaves curriculum decisions to the states, but the message is clear and unambiguous: there must be a curriculum and not just any curriculum will do. Successful implementation of the new standards depends on a coherent, specific and content-rich curriculum.
The Core Knowledge Sequence is just such a curriculum.”
http://www.coreknowledge.org/ccss
It is the standards that there is a difference of opinions, and not the curriculum. But as it is stress, new standards depends on a coherent, specific and content-rich curriculum. And where the present day curriculum falls short of especially in the coherent category.
Folks
Paul did suggest that the focus be put back on the issue at hand; the high cost of IT in schools in this case.
Given how the discussion has slipped badly, ie “conservative states where cousins marry” it might be better not to contribute.
Simple. The high cost is the result of the demand created by the corporations who sold school boards and education departments on the alleged value of their toys.
Andrew, I’m the fellow that Dr Bennett talks of in the original post. And I want to inform you that Information Technology manufacturers that not are the problem here. It is caused partially by the recyling of computers that are cast -offs of corporations that are doing this at the encouragement of governments and the public service. In addition, the computer labs are very wasteful electric hogs and we are wasting tons of money to patch this junk .
Here are the hard facts: Over 20 percent of K-12 schools in America use Ncomputing. An Ncomputing seat costs as little as 70 dollars per student and uses 90 percent less energy. My school board (CCRSB) uses at least 6.5 million Kwh for 12000 CPUs alone. It is probably more then 10 million Kwh depending on the use of old Cathode Ray Tube Monitors .
I don’t really care to engage in the union vs. non-union debate. It’s not really about the corporations either. We are facing a wall of resistance and failure to utilize the most efficient technologies is our undoing. The millions that can be saved can provide the funding for many programs and resources. That’s the heart of the issue.
Think about this: Why do school boards waste millions at every turn and turn a blind eye, while a salesman is offering them something that will not break for 14 school years? It’s not solely about doing business, it is about helping our province progress and set aside the dogma that is leading us us to a financial cliff.
Thank-you John L. I concur with your comments, but wonder if the message is sinking in with other contributors.
Abolish School Boards – Use the Savings For Schools
Naturally school officials in the public school system won’t entertain the idea of abolishing school boards. The ADQ political party in Quebec a few years ago had this in their platform but the idea did not catch on.
Naturally teacher unions would be opposed because they depend on the board system for their power and influence: helping elect trustees, having teachers as trustees, union reps on board committees, etc., etc.
Only New Zealand has abolished its school board system and devolved governance to individual schools. There are now about 2400 such boards with strong parent representation. The agendas of their school board conferences are impressive to behold.
NZ did this in 1989 when their research showed “outright bureaucratic capture and little or no performance accountability. The system consumed 70 cents of every education dollar, with only 30 cents spent in the classroom.” Over 20 years of success with achievement scores equal to Canada’s. See “School Choice – Kiwi Style”
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/176
The same could be done in Canada.
A new book by a professor and historian of education generally, and BC education specifically, has just written two incredible books, and I will quote from: “The Principal’s Office and Beyond” – Volume 2, by Thomas Fleming, 2010, Detselig:
“ … it may be worthwhile to strip away many of the bureaucratic structures now straddling schools and reinvent the system around single institutions …School councils, for example, could easily replace school boards as electoral expressions of community control …The task of coordinating schools could easily be shouldered by a reformed education ministry armed with a support-service mandate … The school inspectorate could be resurrected within the education ministry to ensure system-wide equity, quality, and compliance with school laws …”
Eliminating district bureaucracies would also free hundreds of millions of dollars in resources that could be applied at the classroom level to enrich learning conditions, furnish schools with the latest technology, assist teacher development, and bolster professional salaries to a point where teaching could attract the best and brightest university graduates, thereby enhancing the intellectual, economic, and social wealth of the province for generations to come.”
What Tunya has described, would be ideal, because the structure would be adapting to the needs of the schools, and not as it is in the current structure, where schools adapt to the needs of the boards and ministries. Best part, there would be no problem dealing with the everyday garden variety reading disorders, and other learning problems when the focus is on a support service mandate.
It has nothing to do with technology in schools. This question requires a great deal of “judgement” which, sadly is influenced by IT lobbying. The creation of “The Learning Partnership” in Ontario was really about getting CEOs and school board Directors to eat together, travel together, conference together and get to know each other exactly the way the drug companies relate to doctors. The aims?
1) Purchase more IT or you ar not hip, innovative and modern.
2) Our company is better than theirs. We can give you a discount but only on high volume.
It is now, in my view, about one centimeter from corruption.
There is an “appropriate” level of introduction of new IT but this is not satisfactory to the industry.
It amounts to one more heavy demand on shrinking budgets.
As one well known former director at the TDSB constantly reminded everyone,
“when the water is low in the water hole, the animals look at each other differently.”
Getting back to the topic of IT: Paul’s observations do not reflect what I see in these parts. That is, while IT spending may be ill-conceived or lacking in overall coherence, it is far from sacrosanct. In recent years it has been one of the more vulnerable areas for cost-cutting or sudden deferral due to budgetary restraints. Overall, purchasing and implementation have lagged identified needs and priorities significantly, to the point where in workplaces I have known, resources have been slim to non-existent for both staff and students, and whatever IT technology came on board has always been way too little, much too late, so that we remain constantly in a racing-to-catch-the-moving-train status.
I see several key factors at play but am not in a position to observe how matters are managed or integrated at upper levels; the very size of the TDSB inevitably means that there are many inefficiencies and diseconomies of scale. However, some trends seem consistent.
(1) A huge, and growing, “digital gap.” Anybody thinking today’s kids are coming to school with great computer skills, technological literacy, and are “digital natives” is either very naive, lives in a middle-class/upper-class milieu where such may be the case, or has read too much of Don Tapscott uncritically. Those “digital natives” he describes are overwhelmingly from privileged backgrounds. It’s true that students with technology access at home are coming to school with some computer skills — but for those without such access, and in low income schools that may be 95% of kids, this is absolutely NOT the case. We still see large number of students who have no idea how to log on and log off, access a search engine or browser, use simple word processing features, highlight/cut/paste — very basic stuff. And I’m talking about students in grades 6-8, not primary kids. Using technology for learning requires some fluency with those basics, but many students lack this because they have no access to the relevant equipment. Not at home, and in many cases not at school either. One period every ten days in the computer lab doesn’t cut it. Schools with access to outside funds have overflowing IT resources, paid for by parents or private donors. Schools with limited to no outside resources may have nearly nothing.
(2) A significant area for investment in IT recourse is for students with learning challenges, whether these students are identified as “special education” students or not. Increasingly, parents are refusing such designation; however, the student still has the right to have his or her learning needs met, and in Ontario the Special Equipment Allowance from the MOE is open to any student who meets criteria, which does not include any “special education” labelling. Students may need personalized equipment for physical challenges (low vision, hearing impairments, motor disabilities) or for learning needs such as reading and written language difficulties. There are protocols in place to get the equipment to the students who need it. The concept is good, but the bureaucracy involved can significantly undermine its effectiveness and even prevent the student getting the appropriate equipment for his or her specific needs.
These funds come from the MOE level, but individual school boards also target IT resources at students with learning challenges, under other umbrellas. What I have observed is that the various initiatives are often poorly co-ordinated in terms of ensuring that common hardware, software and auxiliary devices are supplied and then incorporated into students’ everyday learning. It’s not enough to purchase a bunch of “stuff” — students have to be trained in using these tools, incrementally and systematically, in their everyday school lives. This step is often missing. One lack is of adequate staffing to ensure students learn the skills; the other is lack of readily available equipment on a regular basis for the student to become proficient. We still have plenty of elementary classrooms with no computers at all. What is needed for successful IT integration — especially in today’s “full inclusion” environment — is a mini-pod of 4-6 computers in every classroom, so that all students have regular opportunities to develop the needed skills, and the students for whom IT is a mandated accommodation can have it accessible for their daily learning. We are very far from such a scenario.
(3) The “gap” extends to school staff, who are required to do report cards and Individual Education Plans on the web, but who may not have access to computers at school to do them. Much teacher professional development, MOE “webinars” and more, are also online. But staff need access to participate. One school I worked in recently had computers available only for office staff and administrators; the computer lab for students was defunct and awaiting renovation, which kept being deferred, and there were no classroom computers. Of course it was a low-SES school full of new immigrants who were not yet politically vocal.Staff scrambled to do report cards. Several reported going to their spouse’s places of work after hours, others used the public library or purchased equipment specifically for this purpose. However, the employer really has an obligation to supply the minimum equipment necessary to fulfill required tasks. It’s hard to get sympathy for teachers, I know, but they ought to have some level of IT access too.
There seems to be a lack of consultation as well as of thoughtful planning re what is needed and a timeline of how to integrate it in a maximally effective manner. The fact that technology is racing forward makes long-term planning difficult, but there’s no harm being a few years behind on some basic items like laptops, versions of Windows, and software upgrades. They can often be obtained cheaply. Just a few days ago I saw a promo for cheap Dell laptops and desktop computers — possibly because it is anticipated that the iPad and similar notebook devices will soon corner the marker. Now is the time for some public/private initiatives to ensure that low-SES students get the materials they need. I read an interesting report of a development in Uruguay where special laptops were produced for students that contained an anti-theft feature: the laptop would crash if not logged into the school network by a registered user within 15 days or something like that; thus it was of no use to non-school purveyors. They also made the school laptops a distinctive colour.
IT spending here is not at all sacrosanct, but it could be far more focused. More thought and expenditure needs to be targeted to effective implementation and after-market support for student learning.
I fail to see why elementary schools need computers in the classroom.
These are students who are learning the rudiments of literacy, numeracy and critical thinking. In order to do that, IMO, they also need to learn the mechanics such as how to add, subtract, spell words, compose grammatically correct structures, form their letters, etc.
Having machines perform these tasks is hardly the road to a good understanding of the basics.
Please submit your resume to the Ontario Ministry of Education. They need people like you to contribute to curriculum development.
I would tend to agree with most of your third sentence, except for one thing: learning letter formation, how to compose “grammatically correct structures,” spelling, math facts and algorithms — what most of us would consider “the basics” — is either missing entirely from the Ontario Curriculum, or relegated to a very minor back-row seat. Not much instructional time may be spent on it.
Very young children *are* however expected to use IT to research and compose critical-thinking pieces on topics related to social justice, environmentalism, etc. Their grades depend on these products. They need to learn to use technology effectively, and that need is exacerbated when they do not have any access outside of school. Of course, the schools lacking IT resources often lack most other resources too. Some rival Third World conditions, but it is not “cool” to point this out. Nevertheless it is true.
Children who have access to appropriate technology (BTW, there are outstanding IT resources available for TEACHING those basic skills we all value) have a significant advantage over those who do not. We don’t have textbooks and classroom libraries in many cases; in a low-SES, under-resourced school the ability to access reading material online can be a huge benefit to students. Many classics are now in the public domain and cost nothing. I was in a school where there were NO books available for kids to read. Nothing. I haunted yard sales and Salvation Army stores to build up a classroom library, and so did others (a fellow staffer took out a bank loan of $5000 to buy materials for her classroom).
There are good subscription sites for teachers to generate individualized math, reading and writing work for students. Not much class time can be spent on “low level skills” but some is better than none, IMO. The computerized activities have the advantage, too, of being protective of the student’s privacy — the error corrections and re-teaching loops are seen by the student, but not by peers. The student gets rapid descriptive feedback that promotes learning and enables quicker progress. I’ve seen students who are usually disruptive and disengaged settle down and make good use of computer-based instructional opportunities. I’m for what works.
When I had a “mini-pod” available I was able to use it to provide targeted skills practice, supplementary reading and math instruction, and opportunities to learn keyboarding, mathematics, grammar and composition skills. Most students improved by a minimum of 2 academic years, a few by as much as 4 years. Last year, when I had no access to those resources, and only what I could buy or make myself, the students improved, but not nearly so much. The opportunity to provide intensive individualized practice and instructional differentiation was not present to the same extent.
IT offers some great benefits, but it is not a panacea. It needs to be part of a well-thought-out instructional plan. Teachers and parents also need to extend their knowledge of how to use technology purposefully and to support learning, not distract from it. One thing is certain, technology is not going away. And I will reiterate the point that it is of special benefit to exceptional students who must now be in an “inclusive” setting.
Learning letter formation, how to compose grammatically correct structures, spelling, math facts and algorithms, are also entirely missing from the Nova Scotia curriculum. The school board does not allow teachers to teach these “basics”.
We do have computers, though. Some schools have “pods” of 4 to 6 computers in the classroom. Others have computer labs where whole classes can go for one or two classes per week. Though schools have computers, they do not have the software to go with them. Teachers must find suitable programs on the internet. While 20 to 30 students use individual computers, the teacher monitors computer use to keep them on the correct program. Visualize…. a room with rows of computers. When the teacher is not in your row, are you completing an assignment or playing a game? Kids will be kids!
BCMG’s comment warrants a reply.
Yes, kids will be kids — but, as the saying goes, “there’s an app for that.” Our network had a built in feature that let the teacher view every student’s individual computer, clickable from a desktop icon. So you didn’t need to be in the row with the student, and you could view a thumbnail of every student’s desktop at the same time. The program also logged every site the student accessed, the time, etc. So, students were told what sites/programs they were to be using, were told that these would be monitored, and that infractions would result in the loss of privileges. Students, as well as adults, need to be warned that there is no “privacy” on the Internet — and that anything written on school board computers is legally the property of the school board.
I’ve had very little trouble with game-playing students. They lose the use of the computer, sometimes for weeks. Very few push their luck.
I agree about the software issues. We have some excellent Ministry-licensed software, and the board has also purchased rights to some useful things. But we have relied a great deal on school-purchased (or teacher-purchased) software for use at the elementary level, especially sites like enchanted learning, edhelper, raz-kids, Reading A-Z, Science A-Z, and more. I bought a bunch of programs for middle school reading, grammar, writing skills etc. Most allow me to install them on any computer I use with my own students.
Elementary teachers spend, on average, over $1000 per year on instructional materials for their students. The findings are pretty consistent across the continent.
Andrew it is not about learning computers in many nations in the world. It is about efficiency of delivery in Education in many many places. Many nations have found that teacher to student ratios of one to 15 or one to even 30 is an impossible dream in their cases. Ask yourself why is it that we have many foreign doctors , lawyers and engineer despite what we would believe are not conditions for learning according to the educrates in our part of the world ?
Some States in the US are now requiring portions of that delivery to be online. Florida has that type of policy.
I agree that basic education is needed and computers are overemphasized to a degree but computing can be a much more efficient means of delivery of those basics.
The programs are out their. Elearning has been a reality for a long while.
TDSB could not have stated it better, Andrew – the need for technology for elementary schools is essential, plus here – What is wrong with Ontario not supplying computers/laptops for their teachers???? I cannot understand it at all, especially Ontario. One knows there is a student population in Ontario that would get the attention of the big guys, offering cut rate prices on hardware and software. Than there is the community centres and public libraries that should also have a line of computers for kids doing homework, so access to the Internet does not stopped after school hours. Has Ontario change that much, where computers in other public facilities are only located in certain neighbourhoods? If NL, can do it, why can it not be done in Ontario. I just found out recently, that the school libraries and the local libraries in NL, are working together to provide research material for historical and other school projects. Is there any partnership between the public education system and the public libraries in Ontario?
It must be one of these days, that I am thankful living where I do today, smelling the salt air despite the many drawbacks living in rural NL. But one thing that is not lacking, is schools well equipped with computer technology, along with the youth centres and public libraries. I forgot, teachers are provided for too as well, but the only thing as TDSB has stated, is the reinvestment of software, consultation , and instructional planning that still needs improvement, and in the case of Ontario a major overhaul.
If it was not for the computer, the Internet and all the other technology devices, I would have been in a real pickle trying to help my youngest. Living where I do, there is little access to stores that provides educational material, and for that matter the rest of the island. For example, the MP4 player came in real handy, a few years ago, downloading audio stories on some of the classics, where the text was displayed on the small screen. Each word , being highlighted. The cost of the player, $52 and the audio stories were free. And I finally got my youngest to read Tom Sawyer, and a few other classics, increasing her vocabulary and maybe her fluency a tad.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
To use an analogy, having students using computers before they learn the basics of the 3 Rs is like trying to teach them to drive before they can walk.
Basically, the boards not supplying laptops to teachers is like asking the cops to buy their own police car. There is a basic expectation that you will use their marking reporting ystem at a minimum but buy your own tools.
Makes as much sense in 2011 as bring your own chalk.
I used to see it that way, until my youngest came around, with her learning problems. First it was the game boy, to improve eye and hand coordination, and in some cases logical and rational thought. Than the computer arrived 18 months later, when my youngest was in grade 2. At that time she could not string a few words together, nor form letters very well, but she could play a mean game of checkers. Once the computer with the printer came in, I was able to print off practice sheets, for the basics. The same drill sheets that were no longer being given. If I remember correctly, apparently there was no money for extra sheets of paper for extra practice. Game boy improve and than came the brain games, which was a nice complement to the computer games which focus on the basics. As TDSB has stated, there is hardly any practice of the basics even in the primary grades. And yet, with a computer one can targeted the individual needs of a student. The Internet became a best friend, combing and sifting out good ideas and practiced sheets, games, and new ways of doing things more efficiently at home. Any thing I thought was very good, was passed to the school, since many sites were free, and teacher approved. After the primary grades, I moved onto a subscription site because my youngest needed a place to go to that had more or less the same type of lessons at school, but still covered the basics. Some of the subscription sites are very good, and ideal for schools. The one that I was a paid member, would have cost the school $50 per month, for the school year and covered all grades up to grade 8. But, these sites are turned down because they do not match the provincial curriculum. And yet, these same sites are to found in a lot of American schools, as a way to addressed the needs of the individual student, and to motivate students. At least, I found it to be true with my youngest.
If I had waited, until the basics or the 3Rs, it would have been a very long time and well past the primary years, before using a computer. It brought my youngest up to speed, despite her dyslexia – steady improvement on the basics. It especially showed in math, where she was at a grade one level by the end of grade 3. Now in grade 10, she whips through complicated equations as if she has been doing them all her life, finishing off the homework while in class, and the rest of the students are just starting on page 2. Thanks largely to working on basic math, including factions, and in part, on both sides of the family, math strengths seem to run in the family. At least it does with my family.
The computer was an essential tool, and it should be an essential tool in our schools. But even here, the educrats have managed to micro-managed this area, where it is not even used properly for the kids who do have learning problems. And yet, between a school and home, so much can be done to address the learning problems and the basics, at very little cost. Add the growing knowledge from the learning, education and cognitive science fields, there is some simple things that are a small price, that a school can do well, but not the educrats.
I too had to deal with the naysayers of the upper levels, who objected what I was doing at home, because it was not following the prescribed curriculum and outcomes. They discourage games that taught basic math, or grammar while having fun at the same time. If it was not that angle, the other angle I was pushing her too hard, making her work too hard and expecting too much out of her. One day, I got fed up with it, and decided to withdraw my support to prove a point, for the second time. It did not take too long for the teachers to notice her grades were dropping like a lead balloon. These days, my youngest does not need my intensive support, thanks largely to the good use of technology.
Well Doug, we finally agree that teachers should be supply with the tools and not be expected to purchased their own supplies. Remember the old days when we were in school, the teachers had a master book, which was a big accounting ledger that had everything in it? The ledger was always picked up, and carry out by either the teacher or a student when a fire drill occurred. Well, the same thing happens today, but it is a laptop the teachers are carrying out when fire drills are happening. A lot of sensitive information in the laptops, and there is ways of securing the laptops from prying eyes, or cyber-eyes. Just like there is ways in supplying laptops/desktops for low-income students. Government, has to make it a priority at all levels, because it is already part of our lives. If I had a choice between the television or my computer, I toss out the television. I may miss the TV, but I can always watch TV on the computer, or hook up a cable from my computer to the TV, with a little know-how-to from the tech pages of the Internet.
Nancy,
You make excellent points about those who learn differently or require specialized instruction. However, that is not the majority of students.
getting back to the point of the ICT wall of non change in Nova Scotia I think persons posting here should read this
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/NComputing-bags-order-for-2-000-computer-labs-in-Punjab/755723/
The Indian State of Punjab is now adopting Ncomputing in that one state in India for more schools then Nova Scotia has.
How long do you think it will be before places like India take us over in regards to having their children with the skills to displace us in the Global Economy. First it is the Cries of “cheap labor but that is ok they are backward and we have a technological future to rely on”
The world indeed is not that small and soon they will have five times our total population educated in their K-12 schools readying to surplant our economic advantages. You think it is hard to compete with Cheap Labor ? Try competing with Cheap Plentiful Technologically Efficient Labor.
It all starts with the proper resources devoted to K-12 education. The way we have ICT in our system is the mill stone around our necks.
Special Ed was about 15% in TDSB. Probably too many in the progrm. Those with very mild LD are far better served in regular classes with a little help and chack in once a week.
It is very interesting to see a kid with really poor motor skills that tend to make them have low self esteem come alive when their good ideas are word processed.
Yes, places like India, China, and other populous countries that are developing at a rapid pace, taking the jobs that have been outsource from North America and Europe, NComputing is the next change, to transform their education systems. A few years ago, I read an article where there was pilot programs in India, where a touch screen was install in villages, so the children and other residents could view the Internet and how the residents would used the Internet. Some learn how to speak English, others worked on their math, and younger children it showed higher achievement in their school work. As Paul Taylor has stated, “You think it is hard to compete with Cheap Labor ? Try competing with Cheap Plentiful Technologically Efficient Labor.”
One wonders what our educrats are thinking of, and how they determined where the funding is spent on. Too expensive, too much work, and the reasons get more creative as the years roll by. Even in trying to get special education services, in systematic phonetic reading programs the same excuses are used by the bean counters. Of course no one in the educrat’s world would bother to compare the future costs of one reading program over another, just like they do not bother to find out the future costs of one computing system over another. If households operated in the same fashion as our educrats, most households would be in a fine pickle, paying more and more out in terms of heating, lighting, because no one would be bothering to replace old technology with new technology, that are more energy efficient than their older counterparts.
N-computing would be the most efficient, with the added bonus all children, would benefit providing the educrats keep their hands off on how N-computing is being used in the schools.
What is the cost of labour in a factory-made product as a % of the total cost to market?
You would be surprised at how little it is.
Companies are not outsourcing any more in the manner of actually shipping equipment from Canadian and American factories to Mexico for example. They simply invest in their overseas operations much more that their NA operations now.
Companies are not outsourcing???? Get in the real world Doug? Most of the processed foods are being done in countries like China, and shipped back as products ready for sale. Nothing more galling than seeing fish caught by Canadian harvesters, only to be transferred to another ship heading to China for primary processing. As Andrew has mentioned, it is cheap labour in China and other countries that is creating the increasing profits for the manufacturing and processing companies bottom line in North America. What is left, is the few operations in Canada that are hanging on because it is still cost-effective to do it in Canada. As for equipment, India and Chinese firms are in the habit of buying defunct operations, removing the equipment and shipping it back to the mother country. Old steel mills are a favourite to do this kind of operation. If anything our raw resources are being outsource, where jobs are lost because the added-value industries have also been outsource by default.
And there is a real danger, that Canada and United States does not get their act together, in areas of IT in our public education system, there is the danger of leaving our future workers not technologically efficient as Paul Taylor puts it.
Nancy you could not put the my points any clearer.
I will give Andrew and Doug a way to frame what is happening here with a question.
Would you think you could compete with other businesses if you lit your factory with 110 watt bulbs while a factory on the other side of the earth used Light bulbs that did the exact same think using one to five watts ?
Even if you had the very same costs except the energy costs you will eventually lose to that competitor. This is what we are doing blindly in our region.
This is what is happening in the world between the BRIC (Brazil, Russia , India and China) economies and the so called developed economies.
Simply put desktop computers are the incandescent flood lights of the computing world. Thin Clients are the CFLs of the Computing world and Zero Clients like Ncomputing are the High Efficiency LEDs. The difference thou for Ncomputing is that it is not more costly to purchase like LED to Incandescent . With Ncomputing it is up to 70 percent less for a 110 watt computer seat.
The shift on who will be the consumer economies and who will be the producer economies will go to where the largest populations with the greatest efficiencies. Do India and China ring a bell ? Stephen Dukker is seeing that India will replace the US as the largest Ncomputing territory for Ncomputing sales in K-12. The implications of Ncomputing with Linux in India makes for a population that will own us . Computing training in Nova Scotia only prepares our child to work at Big Box Stores not developing software as does the use of open source linux . Alberta ironically only allow donated computers for K-6 that can use linux. Alberta via the top student scores may be on to something. Alberta also has the largest deployments of Ncomputing in Canada.
A very large manufacturing company left my city for a non-unionized Tennessee and Mexico environment.
They simply couldn’t afford the union any longer. Left 700 out of work.
The unions are breaking the back of the province. It will only be a matter of time before the taxpayers have had enough.
Or was it the Union Rules that had the company without the ability to adopt and innovate ? The postal workers union of Canada actually fought the logical and common sense management choice of doing what the US postal service has been doing for Decades. One drop off box for local mail and a second drop of box for out of town mail.
This type of mentality that efficiency takes jobs away is the entire problem with the country . Efficiency was originally what gave us what we are now losing to economies more efficient and hungrier then ours.
Again reflected in our economy are the very bad practices that have people believing they are entitled to a job or a pension when the case is that thinking without high productivity it total unsustainable.
Let me ask you a question.
How does a student use a keyboard if s/he can’t read numbers, letters, etc?
There are a variety of adaptive input devices for such situations. Touch screens are one alternative. Also, “talking” keyboards. We have a student with very low vision who has some devices of this kind. Ther are also input devices that are entirely voice-driven, no typing or touching required.
Does a person who can use a calculator to add numbers but who cannot do so with a paper and pencil know math?
How about a person who can type on a keyboard but who cannot write with a pen and paper know how to write?
How about one who cannot write a sentence correctly without relying on spellcheck? or who uses then instead of than? or who cannot punctuate correctly?
Does a person who can use a calculator to add numbers but who cannot do so with a paper and pencil know math?
My personal opinion is “no” but this would probably not be the accepted orthodoxy. Students are no longer required to master basic arithmetic, either number facts or algorithms. Calculator use is encouraged from the get-go.
How about a person who can type on a keyboard but who cannot write with a pen and paper
Students still need to be able to compose brief responses by hand (unless they have documented requirements for accommodations even for this, which I have known to happen in cases of students with motor disabilities). However, cursive writing is no longer required, and printing is not taught explicitly, either. The expectation is that all students will eventually be keyboarding, and that all assignments of any length will be done on word processors. Any students with clear evidence of dysgraphia or written language disabilities will be provided with adaptive equipment, beginning in the primary grades.
How about one who cannot write a sentence correctly without relying on spellcheck? or who uses then instead of than? or who cannot punctuate correctly?
Spell-check rarely helps the really poor spellers (they cannot recognize the correct word from among a list of options). It also does little to assist in correct sentence structure, or differentiating similar-sounding words and homophones. Punctuation is fairly “creative” these days. The so-called “basics” of grammar, spelling and writing conventions are not a focus of the Ontario Curriculum and cannot take much time in class, or figure very heavily in grades given. I note that this trend is common in other jurisdictions as well.
Speech-to-text software has made huge gains in ease of use and accuracy of output in recent years, and it may be that within a decade or so, students will be able to dictate to the computer and not write at all. We shall see.
Economist Jeffrey Sax was on CNN yesterday on Fareed Zakaria GPS. Investment is not outsourcing. Outsourcing is when the equipment is put on a flat bed truck and sent to Mexico. Those days are over. Companies simply put their investments \\9cash not machines) in their foreign plants now.
Germany has very high labour rates and strong unions as does most of Scandenavia but it maintains a strong manufacturing base by creating high value added BWM Mercedez, Siemans type products.
The unions have very little to do with outsourcing. It is time for Atlantic Canada to get with it and move to where the jobs are. The Fishery glory days are over although some small efforts will survive. Oil is fine but still cannot support the population. You have too many people chasing too few jobs down there.
Time to get an education and get “Goin Down the Road” Fort McMoney or whereever the jobs really are.
TDSB
There are a variety of adaptive input devices for such situations. Touch screens are one alternative. Also, “talking” keyboards. We have a student with very low vision who has some devices of this kind. Ther are also input devices that are entirely voice-driven, no typing or touching required.
That wasn’t the question.
TDSB
[i]Does a person who can use a calculator to add numbers but who cannot do so with a paper and pencil know math?[/i]
[b]My personal opinion is “no” but this would probably not be the accepted orthodoxy. Students are no longer required to master basic arithmetic, either number facts or algorithms. Calculator use is encouraged from the get-go.[/b]
Then we wonder why they can’t do simple tasks like count out change, but hey, they’re whizzes on Twitter.
Sorry, but that isn’t why I pay my taxes.
TDSB, are you being obtuse or are you really missing the point?
All I see in your responses are excuses for not teaching basic skills because a machine can do it.
And we wonder why public education is so messed up.
If our 4 boys were still of school age they wouldn’t go near a public school.
TDSB, are you being obtuse or are you really missing the point?
Hopefully, neither.
I’ve already stated that I agree with your basic position about the need to teach fundamental skills.
All I see in your responses are excuses for not teaching basic skills because a machine can do it.
If that is your interpretation, then you, too, are “missing the point.” However, the topic of what needs to be taught, and how most effectively to teach it, is not really Paul’s question here. We were discussing the cost of tehnology, which is closely tied in with both purpose and planning, which should also be linked to desired outcomes for students.
It seems that if one posts any information about how the system works — say, the curriculum expectations, or what teachers are or are not required to do — one is instantly accused of “defending” the “status quo.” I think I could state that “the bell rings at 8:40 a.m.” and that would be perceived my some as “making excuses for the system.” However, it is just information.
I hope many people are in favour of CHANGING the system. To do that, however, they need current information. Much has changed in the last 15-20 years, and those changes are by no means all positive.
However, I promise not to annoy you with my “obtuseness” any further.
I don’t know what will happen in the future, but I take it your are all for globalization, and the hell with the negative outcomes, of increase consumer prices, lower wages because of outsourcing, and in turn it puts pressure on unions, including public sector unions to reduced their demands. And than there is pressure at the government levels to reduce size of government by outsourcing, layoffs, and reduction of services.
“In the United States, outsourced labor has taken a toll on the national economy. Many Americans have lost their jobs to production shifts abroad. Imports over seas are another reason for an increase in job loss in the U.S. Then those Americans who find new jobs tend to receiving lower wages. In addition, white-collar job are becoming increasingly negatively affected by offshore operations. The most startling of all for any country but especially the United States is that fact that employees in the nation can lose their comparative advantage. When companies in other countries decide to build factory with advanced operations and produce products or services at lower wages as good as those produced in the U.S., the United States then looses its comparative advantage. ”
http://hubpages.com/hub/Disadvantages-of-Modern-Globalization
It is happening in Canada as well, and it is a real pity that big city people are not waking up to the fact, until it is too late. Or for that matter, governments not directing tax dollars to invest in computer infrastructure for all schools, and in turn, efficient, technological savvy workers that can complete and maintain jobs in Canada.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
It was reference to Doug, and it does has a direct bearing on N-computing in our schools. If the educrats – the bean-counters had done their homework in the first place N-computing technology would be in the schools and would be as common as a Windows system.
“What’s behind the resistance within the system? Most school superintendents still depend heavily upon the computer experts in setting policy and defining the priorities. Many IT directors are “old guard” computer science teachers or techies. They not only tend to favour name brands like Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, and Apple but are products of a system based upon segregated computer labs and restricting student access to the Internet on school property.” http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/tablets-netbooks-thin-clients-cheap-desktops-what-to-buy/4378
The public school system as it is currently, is always behind, holding unto the old ways, that often are more expensive and far less efficient. One just has to look at SE, and how regulated it is by the educrats, where a child who is in need of help, can whistle Dixie for a couple of years, before they get around to addressing the learning needs of the child. Of course by that time, it cost more and uses more resources than it would have if the student had its needs addressed in a timely fashion.
I hope you realize that Doug is one of those educrats and that Paul Taylor is in the business of selling N-computing technology for Blue Curl – hardly unbiased and definitely looking after their own self interest rather than the interests of public education, in my opinion.
Andrew, having known TDSB for almost a year now through her posts and having had similar reactions to you I can tell you that she is one of the few competent teachers teachers that still cares enough to try to do something about the current situation.
It took me a long time to come to terms to what she is describing.Here’s what’s happening: as employees the teachers have to follow the curriculum and teaching methods imposed by the MOE.
While perhaps even 10 years ago the teachers had some latitude in how they were teaching right now they have next to none. They are supevised so that they do not spend time on “rote leaning tasks” such as decoding, spelling, penmanship, additions, subtractions the multiplication table because these are NOT part of the Ontario curriculum. Also, the use of textbooks in the first few years of school is discouraged, teachers are supposed to find or make their own teaching materials.
For your information, students today do not have to know the multiplication tables, long division, addition by stacking.
As a condition of employment teachers are not allowed to comment or debate the curriculum; as a condition of the employment contract they have to do what they are told or face disciplinary consequences.
So TDSB tries to at least let people know that this is what is happening: that one of the major reasons the basic skills are not taught is because they are not in the Ontario curriculum mandated by the MOE.
The other major reason being that most teachers having been taught in teacher’s college only “romantic progressive” theories and methods of teaching would not know how to teach basic skills.
Want to see a university’s math teacher take on the effects? Look up hypathia’s blog.
Thank-you “concerned parent” for re-confirming the soft nature of teachers like TDSB to take steps to give us a real peek into the chains of union contracts that bind them from speaking out against issues.
It gives the whole herd-mentality thing legs. I agree with Andrew and read “excuses” into TDSB’s posting.
Maybe one day individual teachers will find the courage to speak their minds and depend less on using parents to defend them…or try to.
Being against Globalization is like being against gravity. It is and will happen. Negotiations can mitigate damage, buy time for adjustments and so on but only MASSIVE investments in education can save Canada in this global environment.
I listen to people’s points, and I have a tendency to ignore their political and job titles, in favour of exchanging information. I f you asked me, society would be better off if they start listening to each other, rather than being dismissive of their points due to political stances and job titles. For the exception of Doug, I go after him because his points are motivated by self-interest, than concern over public education. Often it is their voices that get heard, and not an ordinary parent who has serious concerns about an education system, that can’t seem to get their act together on the ordinary garden-variety reading disorders, or timely intervention. It is the structure and the educrats in the upper levels that are preventing reforms, such as new reading instruction, or math or doing things differently such as N-computing. Which would save major dollars alone in energy bills, and Paul Taylor has pushed his points, His points are very valid, since in my little corner of the world, I too has replace my own desktops with newer efficient models, and there has been a drop in my hydro bill. I too have replaced by old light bulbs for the more expensive green bulbs, and as of yet I have not replace a bulb for over 3 years. If the public sector became more efficient, the public sector could increased services for their residents, as I have more ability to do more with the same amount of money. Of course my point may be moot in the near future, due to rising food costs, fuel, and hydro, the extra money will probably all go to the extra costs, and not on the hankering for Laura Secord ice cream.
Doug, not without addressing the little problem of becoming more efficient, especially in the public education system.
AConcernedParent brought up two points that I have had personal experience with. The first one, “Also, the use of textbooks in the first few years of school is discouraged, teachers are supposed to find or make their own teaching materials.” The second one is, “As a condition of employment teachers are not allowed to comment or debate the curriculum; as a condition of the employment contract they have to do what they are told or face disciplinary consequences.”
Both points, I tried to asked questions and I did at every opportunity, using my youngest as an example how bad the curriculum is. I remembered the first time I asked the question was when my youngest was in grade 1. It was the first time, that the principal came in a parent-teacher interview, because I took a piece of chalk showing how insane the math curriculum and instruction methods that were shown in the work book, and by the way no text book either, and the more common sense methods, that I had when I went to school. It really ticked me off at that point, because children barely knew how to count, and add, when they are teaching higher concepts that were of the older grades, after a firm foundation in basic arithmetic. Plus it was teaching children on the odds, and it was almost like prepping them to make decisions on the odds. It is my own opinion, but to this day I still feel the same about it. By the way, the parent-teacher interview ended badly, where the principal insisted that my youngest was slow, and I did countered his points effectively using evidence and not subjective feelings. All in all, he did defend the math curriculum of the day very well, and I might add here there has been 5 changes to the math curriculum since 2001. But it is still the lousy math curriculum of 2001, no matter what new cover is on the book.
You can make the thing super efficient, we are still not putting anything close to enough into education.
I know there are people on the right who say “money is not the issue” OK we will have a vote by Bof E and those who say money is not the issue will have their government funds cut in half and those who say money iss the issue will get more.
The most conservative boards in the province are whining for money every day of the week. Rob Ford is over at Queen’s Park whining for money as expected after he gave back millions in VRT and froze property tax. Total hypocrisy.
I just don’t know when the penny will finally drop with conservatives that radical increases in ELP and education in general are not just free they are better than free, they actually pull the deby and deficits down due to higher productivity, lower EI and welfare, fewer courts, cops and jails etc.
“The man who open a school closes a jail” – Victor Hugo.
It is time that conservatives learned some basic economics. Education does not belong on the cost side of the ledger. It is a highly strategic investment that China, understands, India understands, Europe understands. The only two dopes that don’t seem to understand this are the USA and some in Canada.
China does spent half as much as Canada or United States does for each student. And there is a country with a different language that has 10,000 characters, compared to 26 letters in the alphabet, Today, in the Globe another article on the weak skills in math, with about 59 % falling below level 2. For the more common reading disorders, most schools are not able to help these kids, because of funding restrictions by the upper levels. Computers are treated as if they are fancy chalk boards and where the upper levels control funds and what can be done on computers and the resources. They prevent others from the wider community to tutored subjects like math or reading, because they do not have a teacher’s certificate. Currently now, at least 15 % of the student population is at risk for landing in jail before the age of 20. Throw in all the have-tos in the curriculum, along with the social engineering being force fed in spoonfuls daily, and the daily propaganda from the upper levels, how well the public system is doing – and you want more money??? Money to do what, continue on destroying, breaking down youths so they become compliant citizens, never questioning any higher authority above them?
What you seem to forget Doug, is the demand of more money to do the same things over and over, is the actions of educrats who do not believe in accountability or even transparency dealing with public tax monies.
Funny how those Chinese are closing the GAP every day, they spend a higher % of their GDP on education of any nation on Earth. I wonder if it is connected?
The more they spend, the faster they catch up. Same with Korea that cut its class sizes in half and shot up the OECD rankings.
Nancy, your post is way off base.
The public supports more money for education by a wide margin.
We have one of the world’s best systems, (name a better national system).
We read write, calculate, problem solve better than almost anyone. Shanghai is the most educated and richest city in China and barely edges us out.
You know that Finland has a child poverty rate of 4% and invests heavily in its teachers.
So what is your model. Which nation should we emulate? Don’t list some one off charter school. The point is what nation does really better?
Depending on you criteria maybe Finland, maybe Korea (long hours) any others you care to mention?
Seeing none I declare Canada the world’s silver medal winner for education.
Nancy, your map is great, it demonstrats as if anyone had any doubt, that wealth and poverty are the overwhelming criteria for success in financial math. The huge red areas on the map of Canada are mainly Native Canadian and hinterland resource extraction.
If you go to the map of Toronto, the weak areas are totally congruent with poor areas while the very strong areas are wealthy. Across southern Ontario, things look pretty good.
Thanks for the compelling evidence that poverty is the real issue.
If poverty is the real issue, according to you, then the logical thing to do is to find ways of alleviating poverty rather than simply tossing more money at the education bureaucracy.
Of course, those profiting financially from the “system” are strong advocates for more money being tossed at it and the poor be damned.
Of course we should eliminate poverty AT THE SAME TIME as we make massive new investments in education.
Finland leads the world. Child poverty rate 4%. USA 20%.
My formula you ask?
Classes of 15 in poor areas bottom 20%, use EQAO scores if you want.
Finland teacher model, 2 masters degrees, massive in service, 2 years preservice but paid at new teacher rate.
Totally free tuition for all programs, interest free loans for poor and working class kids.
Best, hand picked teachers paid extra $20 000 to work in lowest scoring schools.
Extend ELP down to 2 year olds.
Cap HS Applied program (Ontario) at 15% of enrolement in each board, lower again in 10 years.
You will see a huge increase in university ready students.
Moving the goalposts a little bit again, eh?
So where is all the money for this “massive investment in education” coming from? Are YOU willing to donate another 30% of your income in more taxes?
Once again Andrew, there is no need for money to pay for all of this. It is not just free, we can lower your taxes and cut the deficit at the same time because:
With massive improvements in educational outcomes;
1) Productivity improves dramatically. RIM is not located beside U of W without a reason. This new productivity pays for MORE than the investment
but
2) Crime goes down. We need fewer cops, courts, jails. Massive savings
3) Less demand on EI and welfare, massive savings.
4) Less demand for public housing, massive savings.
The economics of education are such that the more you spend, the faster you can cut taxes, lower the deficit, eliminate the debt, pay for great new health care dentistry and drugs on medicare etc
The answer to every single political question is more education.
Not very good at math, the cost of government and economics are you?
The studies are done. Education returns a minimum of $4 to the government for every dollar invested and those are the most conservative numbers. You think I make this stuff up? Ask the OECD the transAtlantic think tank of western capitalism.
MASSIVE investment in education is not just A way out of the mess, it is the ONLY way.
Study away. I’ve yet to see some hard numbers for what you’re saying. So far it’s all been a la Jim Flaherty and we know how well he’s done.
So add another year to teacher training, using the same edubabble in the same year? Only to find out that only a few, actually work?
As you say, the more money is spent on education, the more jobs, but what type of jobs are going to be available? Even people with masters degrees are finding it hard to find a job, and some of them are retraining just to earn a living. There is only so many jobs in an economy like Canada, that depends heavily on resources. As for the manufacturing sector, how many jobs have been lost to outsourcing, or moved to another country ?
As for the high-tech industry, there is only a small percentage of the population that are capable of doing this kind of work, and many have no interest what so ever. Otherwise, the actual manufacturing of a tech device, goes to the company who pays the lowest wages, and they are usually found in other countries.
Andrew pointed out that you have no supporting numbers, and I will point out to compare math rankings to just income, because there is other variables that probably have a bigger influence, namely the public education system and the educrats holding the controls over what is taught and what is not. About time, to asked the math professors what they think of the graduates coming out of high school. They will have a few choice words, especially when they are doing remedial math at the university level. Soon, and no doubt there will be another year added to a 4 year program, just to cover the basics that were not taught in the K to 12.
The londitudinal Perry study is a good start on the ELP end of things. It showed the powerful effect an ELP had on improving the lives and livlihood of student 25 years later.
The USA provides a great lab because the 50 states really do things differently.
The high spending highly unionized states like Wisconsin #2) Massachusetts (#1) Minnesota (#3) totally crush the low spending non-union states such as Texas, (#47) birthplace of NCLB.
The achievement gap critical factor is poverty, the solution is public spending inside and outside of schools.
Time to move the discussion back to the issue of IT in schools, folks?
Doesn’t work.
Doug has his agenda and all that counts are his talking points and belittling others… and looking somewhat foolish in the process.
If we want to have more IT tech in schools we need to make sure our money is all well spent. Here is one more hair brain scheme to waste money by spending foolishly.
http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/07/study-75m-teacher-pay-initiative-did-not-improve-achievement/
Nancy, do you understand this kind of data. Your endless denial of reaity to fit your favourite theory is mind boggling.
All of these people were taught USING THE SAME SYSTEM so that factor is held constant. The successful ones were more affluent and the less successful ones were poorer. See the pattern here?
The education spending argument is clear that it improves outcomes. The qualifier is that if you have a huge immigrant group or rather oppressed racial minority within your demographic, they will drag your scores down regardless until you do something about their poverty and oppression.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/relationship-between-education-spending.html
iPAd Mania is the latest craze and it has even hit Kindergarten! Educhatter’s resident IT bird dog, Paul Taylor, just spotted an amazing story ( Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2011).
Here’s the scoop:
“Maine School District to Spend $200,000 on Apple iPads for Kindergarteners”
Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2011
“A school district in Maine is proposing to spend about $200,000 on Apple iPad 2s to get the devices into the hands of about 300 kindergartners.
“It’s a revolution in education,” said Auburn School Dept. Supt. Tom Morrill in a report from the Associated Press.
Morrill is making the proposal, which calls for the iPads to be in classrooms in the district’s schools in the city of Auburn, Maine. The superintendent told the AP that the iPad is a powerful tool for education when equipped with some of the hundreds of apps available that can aide in interactive learning.
Auburn kindergarten teacher Amy Heimerl received an iPad for her classroom on Tuesday as an early adopter of sorts in the districts plan, the report said.
“It’s definitely an adventure, and it’ll be a journey of learning for teachers and students,” Heimerl told the AP. “I’m looking forward to seeing where this can take us and our students.”
But the superintendent’s plan isn’t a hit with everyone in Auburn, the report said.
Sue Millard, an Auburn mother to students in the fourth grade and in high school said she isn’t sure kindergartners are old enough to make the most of the iPads.
“I understand you have to keep up with technology, but I think a 5-year-old is a little too young to understand,” Millard told the AP.
Larry Cuban, a retired Standford University professor and the author of the book “Oversold and Underused: Computers in Schools,” said the benefits of computers for students so young has yet to be proved.
“There’s no evidence in research literature that giving iPads to 5-year-olds will improve their reading scores,” Cuban told the AP.
If Morrill’s plan comes to fruition this fall, after his retirement which is slated for June, it wouldn’t be the first time the state was ahead of the curve in getting computers in front of its students.
As the AP noted, in 2002 and 2003 Maine was the first state to distribute laptops to every seventh- and eighth-grade student. Those laptops were also from Apple, and that effort is no longer in action, but about 50% of the computers are now used by high schoolers, the report said.
Maine’s state school board unanimously voted to approve Morrill’s iPad plan last week, the AP said.
Angus King, the former Maine governor who launched the state’s past laptop program, said in the report that he was impressed by Morrill’s iPad plan.
“If your students are engaged, you can teach them anything,” King told the AP. “If they’re bored and looking out the window, you can be Socrates and you’re not going to teach them anything. These devices are engaging.”
Comment:
When Stanford University’s Larry Cuban comments, I listen… and he says that computer technology for kindergartens is problematic. So far, there are “no proven benefits.”
(I thank God that my Union has protected me from my Board). Human nature is the same the world over. It is always someone else’s fault and everyone is an armchair quarterback, hind sight is 20:20, etc.. Reality is: life is what you make it!
“The Tail Wags The Dog!
This is a story of subversion, lies and the worst form of deceit, pretermission. It might be regarded as a triumph over bureaucracy but, at most, it is a tenuous success in the face of the overwhelming forces of mediocrity. It is not likely to win any contests, especially since its much longer then its supposed to be, but I feel the need to tell it just the same.
Anyone in the education business knows that to succeed you have to overcome the staggering inertia of “That’s the way we’ve always done it!”. In fact, any story of IT success in the classroom is far more likely to be a tale of “Who you know”, rather than “What you know”. It’s because, inevitably, where ever there is success there is also failure.
Fifteen years ago, when I started teaching after 25 years in the private sector, it was made very plain to me that, in a world of limited resources and little tin gods, if I wished to have school-paid-for technology in my classroom, someone else in the school would have to do without. This fact eventually came back to bite me, but I digress.
My first teaching position was at a small school with a huge student population (fifteen portables around the football field), and I was hired to start a Communications Technology program. Through charitable sources (not the Board), our Technology Department was given $36,000 to set up a lab. Needless to say, I was thrilled at first but later shattered when I learned the Art Department was denied a lab because the school was only allowed to have three, ours being the third. They had been lobbying for years to get one but, when we got the funding, they lost all chance of setting up their program. It did not, and still does not, sit well with me.
The next year, I started a new job at an old school in my home town (my great-great-grandparents went to this school). It is considerably larger than my first school but did not have $30,000 for the entire school to by technology with, let alone one department. There were four computer labs, 20 televisions, one digital projector and a handful of overhead projectors (none of which were in my Department). Resolved to make a difference, I began lobbying for more technology and promptly got told to get in line. It seems there is a hierarchy in my Board and, if you are found worthy (ie. Kiss the right ego), you may scramble for the scraps, amongst the chosen few, as they fall from the Board table.
When I went to him, fortunately, my Principal stopped me in my whining and said “Don’t come to me with problems, come to me with solutions!”. At that moment, my thoughts sank into that deep, dark, terrifying corner of my mind, that I try to stay out of, and came up with a solution. Upon hearing it, my Principal bent down closer to me, with a diabolical look on his face, and said those fateful words “It is easier to beg forgiveness, then ask permission!”. That was twelve years ago and I only look back to remind myself of where I don’t want to be.
For the last 10 years my school has been the most technologically advanced school in our Board. Now, with a population of 1300 students and 85 staff, we have almost 700 computers in our school (less than a 2:1 student:computer ratio) in 8 full labs, 4 half labs, 4 portable labs and numerous small groupings of computers. Public WiFi through out the school. We have digital projectors hooked up to internet enabled computers in every classroom (68), the cafeteria, the auditorium and the gyms; document cameras and smart boards where ever they are needed. Students transfer from schools all around our city, even from other Boards, because our courses utilize the latest technologies in their delivery. Gone are the fights over who gets what, gone are the excuses for not delivering the best. We get compliments all the time from parents and students, even ones who don’t go to our school. All this has been done with little or no help, even deliberate opposition, from our Board.
”
Would you like to know how we did it?
By being resourceful, “If you build it, they will come.” (_?_)