Getting children and teens to offer information about school can often be more difficult than pulling teeth. “What did you do in school today?” usually elicits the all-too-familiar response: “Nothing.” Did anything interesting happen? “Nope.” Did you like it? “It was O.K.” What began is a routine question, ends up becoming a rather futile daily inquisition.
Renowned American child psychologist Michael Thompson once described this daily after-school ritual as “interviewing for pain.” Parenting experts in Canada are so concerned about the matter that they actually offer “do’s and don’ts to increase your child’s willingness to share useful and important information about his school experience.” http://www.canadianparents.com/article/what-did-you-learn-in-school-today
The question “What did you do in school today?” even became the theme for a national study, conducted by J. Douglas Willms, Sharon Friesen and Penny Milton for the Canadian Education Association, in collaboration with the Canadian Council on Learning and school districts across Canada. The CEA initiative’s first report, in May 2009, attempted to tackle the question of student engagement in the classroom, including the possible connections among adolescent learning, student achievement and effective teaching.
A Canadian Student Survey in 2007-2008, involving 32,000 students in 93 schools covering 10 different school districts turned up some troubling results. Too many students are disengaged from learning in school; gaps in student achievement levels persist; and there is growing concern about whether the current models of schooling prepare all young people for future success in life and the workplace. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/otherreports/WDYDIST_National_Report_EN.pdf
The key findings were startling: Overall levels of social and academic engagement were quite low, but intellectual engagement was even lower in the schools. Levels of intellectual engagement declined significantly from grades 6 to 12, dropping from 60% to less than 40% of all students. While students continued to feel a “sense of belonging,” they also reported a major drop in regular attendance.
School and class climate were surveyed extensively, but students were not asked an obvious question: What lay at the root of the lack of intellectual engagement? Simply put, were they BORED by the academic expectations in class?
The original Tell Them From Me survey, designed by Willms and Patrick Flanagan, is not really intended to get at the root of the problem. It’s an an assessment system that measures a wide variety of indicators of student engagement, wellness, classroom atmosphere, and school climate, focusing heavily on outside influences affecting learning outcomes. Among the areas covered are: perceptions of testing, involvement in sports teams and clubs, attendance, hours spent watching TV, a sense of belonging, post-graduation goals, bullying, self esteem, student anxiety and depression. http://www.changelearning.ca/~cl/programs/tell-them-me-canadian-students-speak-about-their-schools
The CEA-funded survey, in fact, asks everything except whether students are challenged enough academically or to high enough behavioural standards. Indeed, the CEA’s initiative is now looking to students themselves to help solve the myriad social problems that have, for generations, bedeviled the system. “CEA believes, ” we are told in a remarkably naive proclamation, that ” students have an important part to play in shaping how we tackle these issues, think about learning environments, and consider the purposes of schooling.” http://www.cea-ace.ca/programs-initiatives/wdydist
Why do leading Canadian educators continue to focus on the branches rather than the roots of the problem of student disengagement? With over 60% of high schoolers reporting a lack of “intellectual engagement,” why look outside the system for the answer? Was John Taylor Gatto completely wrong 20 years ago when he warned in Dumbing Us Down (1992) that the “hidden curriculum” of compulsory state schooling had a “deadening effect” on learning? Could it be that sound, challenging curriculum provides the best guarantor of student engagement?
I find this topic fascinating, and the CEA reconfirmed my beliefs on a few things, that the educrats have it all wrong, including the march toward the big box schools. Confirmation once again, high expectations is the key for the individual student, and not the usual route found in our public schools, especially the big box schools, dumb down the curriculum.
What I found disturbing, is that foundational skills were mentioned once, on page 31, and never mentioned again.
“The findings regarding challenge and skills suggest that there are two separate but parallel issues facing Canadian schools:
• How do we design instruction for the significant number of middle and secondary school students who have low confidence in their literacy or mathematics skills and are prone to social, academic and intellectual disengagement? The findings contribute further evidence about the importance of foundational skills in these core learning areas during students’ first years at school, and the need to continue supporting the development of literacy and mathematics skills throughout the school years.
• How do we challenge students who are confident in their skills? Students who are not appropriately challenged are also prone to becoming disengaged from school, especially intellectually.”
Foundation skills and the foundation knowledge is the first key to employed starting in the primary grades, the second key is consistent high expectations based on the individual strengths, to build on and improve learning weaknesses.Without both keys, student engagement becomes an uphill battle once students are in high school,for schools to improve student engagement.
But as Paul has mentioned, and it is mentioned in the report, curriculum needs to be vastly improved, from primary straight through to grade 12. Disconnect facts, bits and pieces of knowledge, and somehow they expect students to acquired deep knowledge of a topic, as well as to retain the bits and pieces of knowledge into their memory banks, long after studying it once or twice, and never mentioned again. Knowledge is cumulative, but the textbooks, and instruction practices are not the kind that lends itself to students building knowledge cumulatively, as well as as building a strong basic foundation for the students to stand on. I only harped on it, because it was the key for my youngest child, a strong foundation in basic knowledge that is crucial and essential to learned advance knowledge, to acquire the deep understanding, that our educrats so desire in their goals.
It was only than, when my youngest child had a firm foundation underneath her, her disengagement, her hatred for school melted away, and she was engaged in her learning, and became excited about what she was learning. The tough row to hoe as a parent, was getting educators to see her not through the window of SEC factors, and the many labels stuck to her due to her learning struggles, but as a human being with cognitive strengths and weaknesses. As a parent, the experiences taught me very well, that the public education system, is the one that is at fault, and in the report, they too were surprise that the SEC factors did not carry any significant weight when it comes to engagement in school. High expectations, but little was discussed on how important high expectations is in a school environment on an individual student basis, The discussions in the report, centered around applying the report’s finding to the group setting, and teacher effectiveness. Even the most effective teacher, can’t do much with lousy curriculum, disconnected facts, and a roomful of students who all have weak foundation skills at various levels of weaknesses.
The study, did not look into the population size of the school, which may indeed have a bearing on student engagement in high school. Small schools under 300, the teachers get to know their students far better than the teachers in the big box schools. And in my opinion, small schools are the best when it comes to looking at the individual students needs, along with their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the group needs, compared to the big box schools, where teachers probably only remember their best academic students, but not the ones who are disengage, bore or the ones that hate school.
As a parent, if my child was in a big box school, I can well imagine walking into the school twice a month, reading the riot act on all kinds of topics concerning my LD child, and not providing her accommodations, because teachers in the big box schools do not have the time to get to know their students, compared to the small schools. My youngest attends a small rural school, where teachers have the time to get to know the individual students, and these days I am surprised to learn hidden things about my child by the teachers, as well as time spent by the teachers learning about my child’s LD and the unique strengths and weaknesses. So far, I never needed to come down to the school to read the riot act, and I doubt that I never need to because the sole reason is that the teachers are fully engaged in their jobs, which leads to higher student engagement, and that is a factor that is rare in the big box schools.
In order to have high engagement of students, the teachers need to become highly engaged with their teaching. Students are bound to pick it up, if a teacher is not highly engaged, neither will the students be. In the same way, if a parent is not highly engaged with their children, neither will the children be engaged.
The issue of engagement was non existent when most students did not finish high school. The issue began to arise in our consciousness in the 1960s.
A number of researchers- A B Hodgetts, John Goodlad, William Glasser raised it from the late 1960s to mid 1980s.
The lack seems to have many sources, including some previously mentioned.
But in the era of social media and many many distractions, the bar for student success has risen higher than schools’ rate of improvement- yes schools generally are better than they were 50 years ago.
So what to do- I actually think teacher engagement and passion for their teaching and- gasp- their subject is a key.
I also still see value in Glasser’s four learning needs:
– students have power (mastery over content and skills)
– freedom (as much appropriate choice as possible)
– fun / variety (even direct instruction can be varied, as opposed to badly-delivered lectures)
– a sense of belonging / love (classrooms as communities- team sports does this well)
Much more on this but looking at the above is a good start.
The more we force “compulsory subjects” 3 math 3 science, only one history 1/2 civics (Ontario) then students are spending less time with the subjects they find the most interesting.
The easy answer for the student is “i don’t go to school or I am not engaged because I am bored”. This is good for his face and shifts the blame from the lazy student to the “boring” teacher. Someone might bring up that the kids with a gram of postponed gratification ARE in class, ARE trying and ARE getting somewhere.
Finland is moving to even less class time so there is more time for deeper as opposed to broader projects.
A Grade 12 “honour student” working as a cashier at the local grocery store didn’t know 6 X 4. She had to ask my wife.
Sad, isn’t it.
John, you mentioned Glasser, and I became curious who Glasser is. To my surprise, his theories are present in the LD files, and without knowing it, have incorporated his reality and choice theories in my youngest child life, as well as in my life. Glasser believes all students can succeed in school, no matter the SEC factors, and from what I have read so far, Glasser believes the most important factors for students is the sense of belonging in the family, and at the school. To my surprise, I have been employing many of the things he discusses in his theories, especially on competency, and where Glasser is advocating to teach all children to a much higher competency level, than the lower levels of the infamous 50 percent, and call it a day. At home, I call it a day, when my child reach an 80 percent competency level, and than handed the reins to her and she became in charge of what she would learn, and to what depth.
Below is an interesting link, an interview with Glasser.
Click to access el_198803_brandt2.pdf
Another article: http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/the-movie-directors-guide-to-effective-teaching/
Too bad, Glasser theories are not part of the mainstream classroom, because his theories could be the answer to the inclusive classroom, that is not so inclusive. When it is acceptable for a grade 12 student, not to know what 6 X 4 is and has to asked the customer, it is obvious under the Glasser theories, that the grade 12 student was taught failure is acceptable, whereas the Glasser theories contends failure is not acceptable, in all aspects of life and in our schools. Below another link, a famous LD school that uses the Glasser theories, and incorporates in their school.
“The final “piece” of the total school program was addressed by Dr. William Glasser in his original work, “Schools Without Failure”. Along with his training and Dr. Newell Kephart, the model was completed.”
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFGXQ3XQIsU
Engagement is really all about the actors within a school environment and how each individual reacts to one another. In Doug’s post, he blames, minimizing the teacher’s actions and behaviours, and than makes the suggestion that students need less class time, and more time on projects, to acquire deeper knowledge. What is lacking is the how-tos, but more importantly what I have read so far on Glasser, Doug’s solutions and is a common in the world of educating students, is to change the student’s behaviour and attitudes, without changing the behaviour and attitudes of the teachers. It will lead to failure as Glasser has expressed in his theories, and I do think Glasser is correct to state, “The methods employed by the teacher mattered little if they did not satisfy the basic need for belonging-ness: “Hungry students think of food, lonely students look for friends” (p. 20). The student who feels lonely or isolated will invest more energy in seeking a sense of belonging and support than in learning quadratic equations. Glasser developed the “learning-team” model to help students gain a sense of belonging by providing the initial motivation for them to work and achieve academic success.”
http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0303-belonging.html
The above statement rings true to me, because my own child spent a great deal of time at school, investing her energy into belonging, and not on her school work. My child had already accepted failure as part of her mindset, and that she was not a very good person for school work, and she invested her time in other things that brought success to her, much to the chagrin of the teachers, who wanted her to keep on the work task, using the identical methods taught by the teacher, producing the same results, failure to progress. Once my child had the solid foundation underneath her, she than invested her energy into doing her school work, with much gusto and can-do attitude. In this process, the behaviour of teachers changed as well as, changing the perceptions towards my child, that in the end, engagement became a two-way street, as well as the acceptance that failure is no longer acceptable for my child.
“Intellectual engagement” may only be one of the three dimensions of student engagement, but it’s clearly the most vitally important in influencing life chances. In the CEA study, it is defined as “a serious emotional and cognitive investment in learning.” It’s also the best litmus test for what’s actually being learned in school!
The Infographic accompanying the CEA “What did You do in School Today?” report is quite revealing and shows, in graphic terms, just how the school system produces “turned-off” students.
Click to access cea-2011-wdydist-infographic.pdf
From Grade 5 to 12, Canadian students are being made to feel comfortable (i.e., feel “a sense of belonging”), while they steadily lose interest in what they are actually studying and even after they gradually get to choose their own courses, with fewer required subjects. The decline in academic engagement is troubling because it starts in Grade 5 at 82% and drops to fewer than one-half of all students from Grades 9 to 12 (Grade 9 – 48%, Grade 10 – 42%, Grade 11- 41%, and Grade 12 – 45%).
My good friend John Myers is quite correct when he points out that high schools are now serving a much wider segment of the student population. In Ontario, the high school completing rate has gone from 68% to 82% in the past decade. In Nova Scotia, social promotion has pushed the graduation rates even higher.
That’s why it’s time to take stock. We have significantly raised “attainment levels” without really promoting “academic engagement.” So what have we accomplished by pushing the students along, from year to year?
Why all the focus on simply “getting through” high school? Surely serious engagement in learning is critical to future success and employability in the 21st century world.
So what have we accomplished by pushing the students along, from year to year?
______________________________________________________
Higher graduation rates and lower achievement rates as there aren’t any significant standards to be met.
Glasser needs a serious look and the CEA study reinforced stuff Alan King did in Ontario in the mid 1980s.
And as Paul implies, the focus on graduation rates- getting through high school- too easily gets in the way of determining the quality of the education
Another under rated area for schools to focus on is the
Learning Skills section of the provincial report card in Ontario
Employers love it
as do those of us who have done jobs in addition to teaching
parts of this section such as Initiative speaks to the engagement piece as to some of the other skills.
I note based on those of us who have commented on this
that the issues is not
“traditionalists vs progressives”
BTW
I find these labels unhelpful in improving things.
With educational progress, we let the perfect become the enemy of the good. More kids graduating annually is progress. It is a good thing. We need to continue BOTH qualitative and quantitative progress at the same time. Nobody can radically increase grad rates rapidly and maintain quality in absolute terms but it is progress nevertheless.
Doug has a point.
There is no place for non grads so take it as a good sign if we graduate more, however imperfect the system is.
The goals for all should be improvement- often one slow, faltering step at a time.
Graduating Grade 12s to a Grade 10 standard doesn’t seem like much progress to me.
Yes Andrew, it seems to me that the educators within the system, celebrate the successful rise of graduates, even though the rise was all about dumbing down the curriculum.
That said, I took another look at the study of CEA, I can only conclude as Glasser has stated in his theories, (but remember Andrew, he is not an educator), working students harder, high expectations without expecting high competency for all students, will only produce more student disengaged from school. Even the brain research, as well as the cognitive research has shown that competency is the key, but tell that to an educator, and one will received various responses that no one should expect all students to be on the same level of competency regarding foundation knowledge. It is why, we have cashiers who do not know 6 X 4 or the difference between a green onion from a red onion or even a spanish onion. Oh, I can say much more but I let the study do the talking.
“As we are seeing in other countries and increasingly in this country, disengagement in and from school is linked to school violence, social
exclusion, and a polarization severe enough to pose a threat to social cohesion in Canada.”
Dire warnings and is used as an excuse by educators, to place the blame unto the student, rather than the real culprit, instruction and curriculum. Or as Glasser states, students disengage, when schools do not provide for their individual learning needs, the desire for competency and never reaching the competency level that is needed to move to the next level.
“Although family background has a strong influence on student engagement within schools, it does not account for much of the variation among schools. Instead, these findings (Figure 24) provide strong evidence that the five factors affecting classroom and school learning climate account for the differences among schools. Participation in school sports and clubs is an exception, because variation in participation among schools can only be partially explained by classroom and school climate.”
Glasser states, that classrooms should reflect the same parameters as being on a sports team. A student knows, in order to play on a sports team, one must have a level of competency to do so, Students works harder to reach the competency, in order for a chance to be on the team. He states that when students know the competency level of the subject material, the student will work according to that level. Guess what, most students become disengage from their studies once they reach the 50 percent, which is the standard competency level in the public schools today. Glasser states it should be a B level, and goes further that the only level of competency in schools today should be at the B level, No exceptions, no excuses.
“25% do not feel confident in their skills in language arts classes. We expect that many of these students are struggling readers, and a level of 25% is just slightly below estimates based on PISA of the percentage of students that scored at Levels 1 and 2 in their reading skills, the two lowest levels on the five-level PISA scale (Bussière, Knighton, & Pennock, 2007, p. 78). About two-thirds of these students (17% overall) find their language arts classes to be too challenging.”
An assumption is made here, but that is to be expected since there was no data collected on the students’ reading and numeracy levels. But than again, public education systems no longer track students reading and numeracy levels after grade 4, and the authors of the report look to patterns in the stats, and in this case the PISA data. What really bothers me, is the statement itself, as if it is acceptable to have 25 % of their student base under the low reading levels, as a reality and to be expected.
“.In mathematics, however, the pattern at the secondary school level differs quite considerably from the pattern for middle schools (see Figure 28). Fewer secondary school students are confident in their skills and feel they are not adequately challenged in their mathematics classes (20% compared with 26%). On the other hand, larger numbers of secondary students feel less confident in their skills and find their mathematics classes too challenging compared to their middle school counterparts (29% compared with 24%).”
No assumption made here. No thoughts on why students do not feel confident in their math skills. So unlike the assumption made for the low confidence of language arts classes. It is typical from the research within the education system, to repeat the same messages over and over again, in the name of protecting and defending the current approaches in curriculum and instruction of the education system. Glasser is ignored, along with other well-respected researchers who lie outside of the education field, and their research that is not only applicable to education, but across many different fields and society. What the study suggests at the end, is more of the same approaches, adding more bells and whistles, affecting the surface, without touching the root problems of disengagement.
The school I attended had a house system where every student was assigned to a house (team). We had 3 houses and they competed against one another in sports and academically. The competitive nature of the system motivated the more able to help the less able in order to garner more points and “win” at the end of the school year.
But Andrew, under the current dogma and ideology, house system like that one that was in my school, in my classroom, is a no-no under the dogma of equity ideology. Competition is a dirty word, as well as pushing students who are less able to improve, to earn points.
In my local area, the schools still set up house teams, but only for specific events in academics. My kid loves it, because the other kids on the team, saw her through her strengths, and not through the dumb label. She brought to the team, thinking outside of the box thinking, that usually made the team a winning team. The secret was to bring up the competency levels of my child, and in turn, the strengths of my child was allowed to shine through.
I think that the term “engagement” as in student “engagement” is a current buzzword that the education establishment likes to trot out that often gives us the impression of a two-way relationship.
A student can’t rightfully be “engaged” with a system that proves over and over again that it’s not “engaged” with the student…..not really.
The “engagement” term implies buy-in by two individuals toward a partnership, yet all of the perks to the kind of “engagement” educrats like to discuss is usually a one-side engaged relationship. When students and yes, their parents begin to see that the push for “engagement” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be they want more than anything to break off that engagement by starting to divorce themselves from school sooner rather than later in their experience.
How be instead of a system hell bent on wanting to “engage” children we opt for one which through proven methods and measurement actually stands apart and teaches them well? Wouldn’t lessons well-learned generate engagement from successful students?
Let me remind the assembled here that Canada is one of the world’s high flyers in education as PISA-OECD continue to point out. In this link they also propose solutions for all countries especially those like the USA that lag behind notwithstanding their wealth.
http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_46635719_1_1_1_1,00.html
Cannot comment on the other povinces but the NS results are deliberately fudged by the school boards.
Well Doug, this statement of the link that you provided, “While cultural heritages and economic systems differ, all these countries share a common denominator. They all manage to have strong and equitable learning outcomes. In mathematics, more than a quarter of Shanghai’s 15-year-olds can conceptualise, generalise, and creatively use information. Finland shows consistently high performance, regardless of where its children go to school. ”
Strong and equitable learning outcomes – that is one fairy tale, and one myth that should be put to rest. In the way as Catharine has pointed out the meaning of engagement in our public schools. Equitable only when it comes to the percentages and splits of the 40-60 or the 60-40, or the climbing rate of students being accommodated or the appearance of standard testing on the basics before entry into a post-secondary institute. or the 2 billion plus industry in private tutoring in remediation of the basics in the 3 Rs, and that is if the parents can afford this added expense.
Equitable outcomes in my eyes, is an outcome where I have no need to go elsewhere to remediate or fixed the problems that arose from incorrect practices of a public school. However, equitable outcomes for the educrats, is to ensure that kids like my LD child, remains low achieving, and it certainly bears fruit in final outcomes, where less than 4 percent of LD students go to post secondary after graduation. As for the 4 percent, the students were lucky enough to have parents to have the means and ability to ensure their LD kids have the skills in the 3 Rs, needed in their young adult lives. The educrats don’t even know the meaning of equitable outcomes, that are base on fairness and reaching the full potential of all students.
Glasser also had ideas on equitable outcomes – but more importantly careful consideration has been made to include the outcomes in his theories, and unlike other education theories that dwells on the processes, and no minding to the outcomes. Equitable, is not dumbing down the curriculum for the student to ignite engagement, and the only positive outcome it will make the teacher’s work load easier. but no increase in engagement, and deeper knowledge, since the typical standards is a 50 percent and the school calls it a day. No need for students to reach higher, when 50 percent is the acceptable level.
Catharine is probably correct to note that student engagement has become the new buzz word, while new emerging theories that centers around changing the educators, the schools behavioural, rather than focusing on students’ behaviour. Below is a link describing a theory called, PCT.
‘A Connected School is primarily concerned with improving school climate, a catchall phrase that refers to those factors not directly associated with teaching standards or course content. The most important element in school climate has to do with the relationships in a school. The connection between school climate and achievement is now well documented. Students who feel connected to their schools do better than students who do not feel connected. Helping teachers learn how to better connect with their students and helping them model self-evaluation skills sets a tone and direction for school improvement which is aligned with PCT principles.
Two ideas underscore the approach taken by A Connected School. The first has to do with the idea that schools must change from within. The second puts emphasis on teachers changing their behavior rather than focusing on ways to change student behavior. Educational research certainly seems to support this approach. What makes A Connected School unique is that the program is based on PCT (and the method of levels) and is deliberate about teaching communication skills through involvement activities and role play.’
Click to access Connected.pdf
Speaking about engagement, rather disturbing to read this. ”
Teachers know that inflicting pain to make students obey simply reinforces a cycle of violence. Behavior modification is far more complicated, and requires far more work on the part of the disciplining adult. Good teachers know that discipline only really lasts when it engages kids from within, so that the students want to become responsible for their own behavior.
There are lots of approaches to this, but inflicting pain and fear is not one of them.”
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/school-kids-being-shocked-with-tasers-pepper-sprayed.html#ixzz1hy7Sx3lO
However it is a growing problem in Canada, when it comes to schools and their policies to disengage kids, rather than to engage kids from within.
“The use of non-lethal weapons to discipline school kids isn’t limited to Tasers.
Last year, a 7-year-old special education student whom the San Francisco Chronicle described as having “learning difficulties, dyslexia, anxiety disorder and social-skill problems” was doused in the face with pepper-spray by a police officer called into the classroom by teachers unable to handle the child’s temper tantrum. The boy’s parents have since filed a federal lawsuit against San Mateo on the grounds that their son was treated like a “common criminal.”
Don’t you just love the inclusive classroom, that wants all students to become part of the norm, without regard to the individual’s needs and learning needs? I always said, the inclusive classroom of today, is a very exclusive classroom. Always excluding, by dumbing it down, ignoring the individual learning needs, and somehow expect students to be engage and willing to learn. And if not the previous ones, the handicapping of students to prevent them from moving forward and beyond the academic requirements.
Nancy, none of that repetitive reform rhetoric and “dogma” obscures the fact that Canada has one of the world’s finest systems.
Unless we want the tutorial model of Korea we should learn from the Finland model. Finland has a lower standard of living than Canada and the USA in the usual terms of GDP divided by population yet comes first and has less poverty. They provide a hot nutritious free meal, university and polytech is free, their teachers teach less time per day, their students are in class less time, but 90% of their teachers have a masters.
This is called making education a PRIORITY.
Sorry Doug, Finland clocks in about the same standard of living, depending on which index one is looking at. In the top 20, Canada and United States. Where Finland differs is the high tax rate. Below is a link, listing countries with high tax rates and low tax rates. United States and Canada falls under the low tax rates, and Finland is in the high tax bracket. Otherwise, standard of living depending on the index and what is being measured, there is no significant differences between Finland and Canada in living standards. Finland is in the best shape economically speaking, out of all the European states, but are hurting since Finland is part of the European Common Union.
Finland, like other European countries have much higher costs in basic living expenses, food, shelter and other living expenses, compared to Canada and United States. But Doug, why compare Finland, when the provinces of Canada can be compared with each other, on standard of living measures, and other related economic measures to the education measures.
Probably there is some truth in high engagement among the Atlantic coast students, compared to Ontario or Quebec. It was just reported on the news, that the Atlantic region, is home to the highest percentage of home ownership, and something Ontario or Alberta cannot boast about. I am sure home ownership versus renting, impacts schooling of students, as well as impacting engagement, in different ways.
Engagement is probably more than the usual SES factors, but a combination of the right measures. such as home ownership, does it impact student engagement? Have no idea, but it may play a big role in reducing absenteeism in schools. If provinces were compared, it may be an useful exercise compared to using other countries to discussed education issues.
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Per capita GDP is totally irrelevant by itself when assessing standard of living.
Well, looking over the OECD link, I explored the other OECD links, and I found a study called Ten Steps to Equity in Education. A real eye opener, to the march of lower standards of education and higher levels of equity among students. Along with the lower standards, comes the many second chances to addressed the gaps that students will have, but never fear rest assure, all students will have equity no matter the SEC factors. The report is long, and I only read the first two chapters of it and it resembles the talking points of Doug, almost word to word. Doug, do you happen to have all the reports of the OECD on your computer, so you can copy and paste at your pleasure. Just kidding, but in Chapter one I believe, the report is calling for limiting the options parents have based on income, to prevent outside tutoring, and other advantages that higher income parents may have. As well as making schools more balance with an assortment of different incomes. Hum, I wonder how that one would go over in places like Mount Forest in Toronto, making room for others with lesser income, or sending the more well to do students into the poorer neighbourhood, with their designer clothes and the latest running shoes. I bet Doug, would be gun-ho over that recommendation, although I do think it is an Utopian fantasy on steroids.
So far nothing that addresses curriculum and instruction, but it does not mean it is not in the report. But the report does cover engagement, and their concerns over it. What I have read, I am beginning to wonder, if the current engagement approaches in Canada’s provincial systems, are specifically designed and funded for high immigrant and low-income schools, matching with the facts of this OECD report, and the policy suggestions, and for schools that have somewhat higher engagement levels based on income, engagement of parents is discouraged in the form of discouraging parents from helping their children at home, to discouraging the use of private tutors, and more or less try to control the external advantages that students processed, to level the playing field in equity levels that will be a closer match to schools that are being funded for higher engagement in high immigrant or low income schools. Anyhow, the report is quite big on equity, and a follow-up report is due to come out in 2012. Just wondering how the report is going to sound like, in the light of the world-wide economic upheaval, compared to the rosy times of 2007.
Click to access 45179151.pdf
The authors of the report, is the standard educrats found in the OECD, who I don’t think any of them have ever taught in a classroom, and views us regular folks as abstracts, that fit in their concept of reality. Much less fight their way out of a wet paper bag, or come and tutor a child in reading or doing math.
Simon Field speaking at the Elder Hostel convention. The average retired citizen could only hope for a life like that, instead of worrying about the cost of living. “Each society must be able to support itself in a competitive world,” said Professor Jarvis. “The working life will need to be extended to at least 50 years and maybe longer if society hopes to be able to support itself and people will need to understand the reasons for an extended working life—another challenge for lifelong learning.” He also mentioned citizenship, culture, welfare and individual fulfillment as society’s prerequisites in the era of . On welfare and individual fulfillment, he said “concern for others is the beginning of all morality and for society to survive it must be based upon a responsible caring morality.”
https://plus.google.com/104825654628158977399/posts/QpQQmMBLM17#104825654628158977399/posts/QpQQmMBLM17
Another facet that reduces student engagement, is curriculum.
“Student engagement in class time has never been more important. It is
difficult to learn just by reading the texts; the student must also “experience” the material and generate a personalized set of learnings called “Notes” which become their core study material, rather than the text itself. In particular, students who miss class are at a severe disadvantage: they cannot catch up by referring to the text alone. Of course, this approach puts pressure on parents, tutors and friends. At ¯first glance, there is little in the new textbooks that looks familiar or affords a handhold into the material. As one teacher recently put it, “it’s as if the signposts are missing.”
Click to access AtlanticReport.pdf
I believe this Atlantic math curriculum has been canned, but I do know it is no longer used in NL. At present the grade 11 and grade 12 students there isn’t any standard math curriculum, or even a text book. But that is a blessing in disguise, because the students are getting a firmer foundation in algebra and trig, the how-tos which has not only raised achievement but has raised engagement in the grade 11 and 12 math classes. to where students are packing the advance math classes. So there is something to be said about using lousy math curriculum or doing without, using the knowledge of the math teachers, and the ability of teachers selecting their own math material. for students to used and study from.. Does it improve student engagement in math class? From all indicators, I would say it does, and I am thankful, the powers to be in the education ministry, decided way back in 2006 or so, the class of ’94 and ’95, will not be receiving the new math curriculum, which is worse than the previous math curriculum, in my opinion, as well as the WISE professors’ opinions.
I believe curriculum plays a major role in student engagement in the classroom. If it is lousy, few students will be eager to learn, especially if learning becomes a series of struggles, to reach understanding of the material. Students will find other things to do in the classroom, such as texting, and looking up facebook for the latest news.
IMO, what is being ignored here is that the impersonal delivery of education in the big box schools alienates students. They have no sense of belonging to a school community.
Nancy Finland at 34 000 is behind Canada at $39 000 and USA at $44 000. Fairly significant.
Yes, Finland, like most of northern Europe, believes in a high tax high service society. It is much more efficient.
Atlantic Canada home ownrship? Of course they do, houses are much cheaper there. Atlantic Canada has much lower SES overall. The main reason for lagging in academic results. Absenteeism is a factor of SES not home ownership. One of many reasons low SES students do not do as well.
Of course they do, houses are much cheaper there.
_________________________________________
And incomes are much lower. Your point?
Doug, of course home ownership matters big time in all aspects of the economy, and the ability of the individual citizens to own a piece of their country. What I heard on the news, home ownership matters big time, especially in places like Alberta where ownership is low plus big wages. The more people have ownership, the better the social aspects such as crime, the more citizens are engaged with their communities, as well as taking care of their families. As for siting absenteeism as being a factor on the east coast, it is Quebec and Alberta that has the problem, along with kids dropping out and not a major problem on the Atlantic coast. People who own homes, lack the ability to move at a drop of a hat, when they have equity in their homes, and the home ownership, helps citizens to become part of the community, the schools because it helps to retain their property value. The problem lies with schools, are student population with high percentage of renting as opposed to owning a home. Big cities are dealing with that problem for many years, and when renting is over 50 percent or more, other problems surface that the schools, police, social services and other community programs are dealing with the fall out. Don’t dismiss home ownership, because a lot of educrats on the east coast would agree, that home ownership is a plus plus, when dealing with families of low income. The family does not have to worry about a roof over their head, and therefore can attend to other activities such as seeing the kids off to school, without worrying if the landlord is going to serve notice. The Atlantic provinces have some big pluses, that kicks up the quality of life a few notches well pass Ontario, and the harried life the Ontario residents spends, and a lot of it commuting back and forth on the six lane highways.
GDP is a bad stat to compared provinces, but useful for overall national stats and comparisons of other countries. And not at all useful for education purposes for the domestic scene. I take it that your figures are salaries. Below are the stats – “GDP dollar estimates here are derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. Such calculations are prepared by various organizations, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As estimates and assumptions have to be made, the results produced by different organizations for the same country tend to differ, sometimes substantially. PPP figures are estimates rather than hard facts, and should be used with caution………………….. Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. Other figures include savings (not just income), such as national wealth. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country’s standard of living;[1][2] although this can be problematic because GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. See Standard of living and GDP.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
2012 will be a really interesting year Doug, the economists are very interested in the public education scene, questioning the Holy Grail of human capital and levels of education. As education funding increases, student levels in the 3 Rs are flat-lining, but no real gains being made over all for student achievement, except in pockets of the English speaking countries. The economists are really questioning the OECD, the World Bank, and other global organizations that are pushing for education policy based on the wrong measures. Student engagement is question, when education funding is directed away from the students, to pay for the high price help to get students engage, as well as the parents.
Comparing Finland, is like comparing China to Canada. One is an apple, the other one is an orange and the last one is a pear. What Finland could do with their small population, cannot be replicated in Canada. The economics just won’t fit. Nor would China’s economic model, that is based on cheap labour, and close to 2 billion people, where 60 percent of the people have less than grade 6. Is Finland and China more efficient than Canada? If I had to pick a place to live, I pick Canada without hesitation. and put up with inefficiencies, rather than the inefficiencies in Finland’s or China’s system. And if efficiencies is going to be discussed, Canada and its provincial public education systems are tops when it comes to its inefficiencies. Perhaps another reason why kids disengage in school, they too see the inefficiencies of the school, and preferred their own homes, despite the faults they see in their own homes. Engagement of students can be turned off for a school system operating with inefficiencies, or as Andrew has suggested a school having impersonal delivery of education to the classrooms.
I take it that your figures are salaries.
_____________________________
No. They are per capita GDP.
Andrew, the link that I provided, also has the explanation on the differences in GDP.
” Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. Other figures include savings (not just income), such as national wealth. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country’s standard of living;[1][2] although this can be problematic because GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. See Standard of living and GDP.”
Go to my last post for the link.
Using salaries, may not be as useful in comparing provinces, For example on the East coast, shelter costs are much lower, so the amount of house one call buy goes a long way, compared to other provinces. In other things such as home and auto insurance, depending on what province one lives in, the Atlantic provinces pays the least in insurance premiums, compared to Ontario residents, who pay the most. Just using the salary without including the cost of living, may not be at all useful to making inferences on students engagement, or academic standing.
As I implied earlier, numbers by themselves are meaningless.
Back to engagement, I came across a few studies and reports. The first on is from Australia .
Schooling Issues Digest: Student Motivation and Engagement
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_motivation_engagement.htm#Motivation_and_engagement:_what_do_we_mean?
The second report from United States – Flow States and Student Engagement in the Classroom
http://www.amersports.org/library/reports/8.html
The second link is of importance, because it focuses on the student and what is happening within the student.
Why I mentioned it, as I read other small studies and reports, solutions were often of control, rules and regulation, and very few recommendations that would actually motivate students from within, and engagement comes from the flow of being motivated from within.
A report by the Nova Scotia government, called Minister’s Response to Promoting Student Engagement: Report of the Minister’s Working
Committee on Absenteeism and Classroom Climate
Click to access Climate%20Committee%20Report%20Response.pdf
In my opinion, it is an effective way in keeping unmotivated students stay unmotivated, and motivated students to continued to stay motivated, because of the external rules and regulations being used to enforce attendance at school, but will do little for engagement of students, especially the kind that comes from within the student.
Also, as I discovered reading the many studies this afternoon, much of the focus is on the school and its operations, rather than on the students and their needs. How engage can a student be, if the student has not be taught note taking or has never picked up the skill of note taking on one’s own time? Schools do not teach note-taking, grammar, spelling and the other basic writing skills needed to become full engage in a classroom environment. It was a big problem for my child back in the early grades, due to her dyslexia, and boy did I get some heat from the educrats for writing her notes, having her prepare the night before, so the information would not be new to her, All done in the name of having participate in class, and a boost to her confidence, as well as having consistent modeling of note-taking, until she built up fluency in her handwriting to begin to take her own notes. My child was motivated to come to school, because she was prepare ahead of time, and felt confident enough no one would laugh at her and call her dumb, which kick in the engagement part, where she was willing to take risks and participate in class. And back than, she was risking being called dumb in all the various hues of dumb, but it fall away when she discovered she now had time to listen to the teacher, because she did not have to follow the difficult task of writing notes, and her only task, was to add information that I did not cover in the type written notes. Within two weeks, teachers reported to me, my child was fully participating in class, engage with learning. and the teachers did not say anything about the notes that I was writing for her on all subjects. From they, she developed her own classroom strategies in keeping up with the class, using the textbook and the notes to guide her through, while I fought the educrats for lesson summaries on the most important knowledge to have down pat.
Over the next few years, and is now essentially a part of her, she is motivated and engage from within herself, and sees the external rules and regulation imposing restrictions as something to put up with, but they certainly do not motivate her, and at times impacts her internal drive on motivation, to decrease and disengage. In other words, she finds other things to do in class beside engaging herself in learning.
Now my question is, is it not best to turn on the internal motivation of the students, rather than using the blunt hammer of rules and regulations, by providing the students with the basic skills needed such as note taking and other fanciful inventions such as grammar and spelling, throw in fluency in reading, along with summaries guides listing what will be be learn, and perhaps a few explanations, so students can than take charge of their learning in the classroom.
And than the next set of improvements would be instruction and curriculum, that is more in keeping with the students inside the classroom, and not some educrat at the board level, who thinks 2 + 2 can equal 5, and it is good enough for this set of students.
Are you surprised that the OECD, a business capitalist thinktank agrees with a social democrat like me? Why? These are the international experts Nancy, not you a total amateur.
Yes, the evidence based experts support the OECD, PISA, TIMMS, Finland direction and directly oppose the pathetic American experiments with charters, vouchers, merit pay, streaming, testing mania and the rest. These will soon be on the scrap heap as they fail the test of evidence and scaleability.
No, not at all surprise, and if one goes further and check their qualifications, it has never fail, they also have an education degree. Well immerse in metaphysics philosophy as well as knee deep in Marxism, and to be used on the masses to accept globalization, long with reduce wages and big big government. Somehow Doug, people especially in NA is going to take orders from some bureaucrat hack, that you are not allow to park in your own driveway. Just one of the crazy things happening in Europe, and driveways just became green spaces.
And stick with Canada, lots of things to discussed, especially on the things happening with the Toronto Board. Let me see, where do I start. So many things to discussed. What about the waste of money spent on the lanyard ID safety policy? I am sure it disengage students rather than endearing students to become engage with their learning.
What the Americans, the Corporate reformers and their ilk need to discover is that there is no need whatsoever for innovation. We know what works, “one size for all works”. Small classes work, PD works, ECE works, more funding works, higher teacher education standards work, a focus on equity and “bringing up the rear” works, summer programs work, after school programs like Pathways work, reducing poverty works, curing low-birthweight works, nutrition works, glasses and dental care works.
We also know what does not work. Vouchers, charters, merit pay, testing streaming, financial cutbacks, teacher bashing, and all of that privatization garbage does not work. It is designed to make superprofits for corporations, not to help kids.
These are the international experts Nancy, not you a total amateur.
_____________________________________________________
You might want to lose the attitude, Doug. It’s highly unprofessional.
She just gets to me after a while…. (Edited)
OECD is a BUSINESS ORIENTED CAPITALIST THINK TANK. The fact that they say that American corporate reformers are dead wrong and social-democratic governments are correct goes against their grain but it is evidence based, no warmed over populist rhetoric.
Everything proposed by reformers is being proven wrong, vouchers, testing, charters, teacher bashing, privatization, de-professionalization but their attitude is “don’t try to dazzle us with the facts, our minds are made up” it is a far right ideological movement, not a kid oriented solutions movement.
Well Doug, I (happen to believe that) Marxism theory is embedded in the organization and the thinking of those who are in government whatever its political stripe… (Edited), and it does not matter what political stripe the government is…..(Edited)
Now, enough with Marxism… (We are really talking about)…state monopolies such as public education,(which) control and exploit the users of the …system, while increasing power and influence for the major stakeholders… Control methods such as the lanyard ID safety tags(supposedly) increase safety of the school, butsimply put a band-aid on the safety issue… Blame is redirected at the students, rather than the school policies that increase risk for student’s safety. (In such cases), the education system picks the cheapest options, and the least effective options for the students, but (serving the interests of).. the major stakeholders of the system.
Many of the internal policies in the public education system actually hinder student engagement, as well as the engagement of parents. For parents and students to effectively engaged with the local public school, or the local school board is to accept the limitations created by the stakeholders, using the school trustees and other legal legislation, placed on the students and parents, and accept the major stakeholders are in charge and have the authority over all things education. The tug of war begins and end in the ideology, dogma, and political spectrum where the stakeholders of the education system, justifies their policies and decisions within the spectrum. It leaves the users of the system, in the land of limbo, with limits placed on their ability to look after their own best interests as well as narrowed parameters defined by the stakeholders on what is permitted to be discussed and not discussed.
All about control and power, and engagement is the latest buzz word in the public education system, because in my opinion the public education system has moved to a more authoritative system, looking after the best interests of the stakeholders in the public education systems, and . narrowing the windows of options for students and parents alike to look after their best interests, and disengagement is the resulting behaviour of the users. People withdraw, and let the so called experts of the system to handle the education of their children, with a minority of people, playing the role of questioning the so-called experts. The stakeholders responses lie in the spectrum of the ideology, dogma and political lines, to defend current policies and approaches.
Engaging the students and the parents at this point in time, is a real hardship for the stakeholders of the public education system. After all, the parents and students have been bombarded with the messages, that education should be left up to the experts, and the job of parents is to become the cheerleaders for their children. and to do things for their children in the same manner and methods that the school employs. After all, the captive students have come home from school, saying in so many ways along the lines – It is not how the teacher does it or you don’t know the new ways Dad, you can’t help me. It is why parents withdraw from the politicized mine field, and work from afar to maximized the best interests of their children. As for students, disengagement and engagement is a organic experience, disengaged one moment, and the next moment engage in the learning., And as the research have concluded, the school and its policies are the number one influence over engagement and disengaging from learning.
The word screed comes to mind, meaning #1c
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/screed
Ever play word association, Doug?
How about pompous? unprofessional? smug?
“If we expanded our definition of what it means to be smart – to be intellectual – we’d be doing society a favor… It’s necessary for students and anyone who has been formally educated to consider what constitutes intellectual contribution.”
Nicholas McBride
http://www.honors.umass.edu/featuredstory/nicholas-mcbride-present-art-intellectualism-lecture
Academic expectations and intellectual engagement have also suffered, as a result of the systemic cuts to important areas of education like the visual arts.
This issue of engagement has as much to do with the decline of liberal education, as it may have to do with boredom.
The Canadian Education Association, initiator of the “What did You do in School Today?” program, has been trying to advance “student engagement” by transforming classroom practice. It too has been shoehorned into the larger “21st Century Learning” movement.
The October 2011 Annual CEA Council meeting featured a panel discussion entitled “21st Century Learning: From Rhetoric to Reality.”
The CEA Newsletter report reads like a passage lifted directly from Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talks:
“Much has been written about the need to re-design and re-vision our education systems based on the needs of the 21st century. What remains attractive about a focus on 21st century learning is that it challenges us to move beyond making adjustments to our current systems – which have been designed for a bygone era – towards developing strategies and ideas for how learning and teaching can be substantially transformed to ensure that all learners are equipped with the competencies required for an ever-evolving world. Young people today need to be competent in problem solving, critical and creative thinking, collaboration, and communication. The importance of these skills in learning is not new, but today, they are required by all students and not just the few students who achieved them in the past.” (CEA Newsletter)
THe CEA claims to have identified “many examples of how educators are trying to innovate their thinking and transform their practices to provide learners educational experiences that develop their ‘21st Century’ competencies”.
What stands in their way of achieving the ideal? “Roadblocks arise” from “systems that are deeply entrenched in traditional ways of learning and teaching.”
Really? Or is it that “21st Century Learning” top-down initiatives lack traction with teachers who remain skeptical of such fuzzy schemes?
The CEA panel, chaired by Ron Canuel, had only one school-based educatior: Darlene Fitzgerald — a Halifax Junior High School principal.
A closer look at her profile is quite revealing: “Darlene Fitzgerald has over 18 years of experience in the public education sector as a teacher and principal. She has also worked with the Nova Scotia Department of Education in Mathematics and student assessment and with the Halifax Regional School Board as a leader in curriculum implementation, student assessment, and evaluation/school planning for improvement.”
Here’s the scoop on Darlene Fitzgerald:
She has been a Junior High School Principal (Grades 7-9) for eight years, four of which were at Sir Robert Borden, a participating school in CEA’s What did you in school today? initiative. While the HRSB Superintendent (Carole Olsen) was CEA President, Ms. Fitzgerald, her staff, and Student Leadership Team were recognized nationally with the 2009 Ken Spencer Award to Innovation in Teaching and Learning for promoting “student voice and intellectual engagement for improving student success.”
Since 2009, the CEA has trotted out Darlene Fitzgerald regularly as a model educator. The Coordinator of the whole CEA Student Engagement project is none other than Jodene Dunleavy, a close colleague of Fitzgerald’s from Halifax. Could it be that Superintendent Olsen stacked the project with HRSB personnel? Why — after 3 years — are we still hearing about accomplishments back in 2009?
Let’s take a closer look at the HRSB Annual Reports for Robert Borden JHS. I wonder if the student and parent surveys are as fulsome in their praise of the school’s success. (Stay tuned)
The CEA is on the hunt for champions of the new “21st Century Learning” approach and much of the “What did You do in School Today?” project smacks of finding unsung heroes and celebrating their successes.
One of the best critiques of this “Hero Educator” mentality was produced by Dr. Dawn Henwood in a lively June 2009 AIMS Commentary with a great little title: ” We don’t need another hero! Why Hollywood should not be the inspiration for education reform in Atlantic Canada”
Here’s a short synopsis of Dawn’s commentary:
“Hollywood films are full of examples of teachers fighting the system for the good of their students. Such is life in the movies. Research shows that effective education does indeed need more local power and better accountability, but it needs to be system-wide, not just the one-off heroes idolized on the big screen.
In We don’t need another hero!, Dr. Dawn Henwood examines how educational policy makers are implementing systemic changes that stimulate creative, effective teaching. She points out that elsewhere they are finding innovative ways to empower local schools and make educators accountable for results. At the same time, they’re strengthening the authority of those educators as well as drawing on the energy of community engagement.”
For the full story, see http://www.aims.ca/site/media/aims/Hero.pdf
Take that CEA! There’s more than one way to spark student engagement! Imagine what Dawn could have done on that October 2011 CEA panel.
“Good news” counts. Just as there is a mountain of research supporting student engagement by focusing on the positive, the same seems to be true of administrators. More than 2 decades ago I co-wrote a chapter around conversations I had with then superintendent, soon-to-be Director of Education for Toronto, Joan Green. She said, and I agreed, that a key role for school administration is to
spread the good news whenever and wherever you find it.
It improves morale and from there teacher performances, as it does for students.
I am not talking about false praise, but noting specific behaviours and practices that are working in classrooms. This has been confirmed by many studies resulting in a quite readable book, Mindsets, by Carol Dweck.
John, Good news certainly count, and there is lots of research to support the premise of good news. However, the good news that is talk about at the lower levels, may not at all improve morale or even improve student’s achievement at the end of the day. As I have observed, and experience, good news is shaped to reflect the goals of a school or a school board, and downplay the negatives. Often the individual practices of teachers, the practices that impacts the majority of students, are the very same practices that are not given a voice, because they do not reflect the current thinking of the administration. After all, it would upset the ratios if the lowest achievement students started to preform at the same levels of the A and B students.
Mindset of students, teachers and for that matter throughout the education system are very important considerations, because the mindset of the various players affects engagement and motivation. Try being a parent who is face with the mindset of educators and the administration, that their child in their opinion is only capable at the very best, an academic average of 60, providing the child works hard using their best efforts. A few years later, the parent and the child, provides evidence that not only the child is reaching above a 60 average, but is a solid B average, The mindset of the administration, as well as the teachers will still reflect, capable at the very best an academic average of 60. No one within the education system, is curious what changes were made to reflect the higher achievement above 60 percent, because it may attack another set of mindsets that live and breathe within the education system. This set of mindsets, leads teachers and board staff to make the edicts of lower achievement.
On Dweck’s Mindset site:
“Carol Dweck, is well respected in her research , but her research, as with other research is shaped by the public education to reflect the mindsets of those within the education system, as well as the goals of the education system. As I have observed, engagement and motivation practices often are directed at the high achievers, in the hope that the lower achievers, the ones with the negative mindsets will adopt the mindset of the low achievers. Hard to do, when the low achievers and the ones with the negative mindsets are students for the most part, missing crucial gaps in their knowledge and foundations, that prevents and limits the students to take and adapt the characteristics of the high achiever that helps to maintain their grades and positive mindsets.
In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success—without effort. They’re wrong.
In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people have had these qualities.”
http://mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/index.html
Within the education system, one of the major mindset that is impacting the motivation and engagement of all students, is that most educators believe intelligence and talent are fixed traits, and little can be done about it. John, to truly discovered the mindset on your own, go to the world of special education and the practices. And than asked yourself, why the good news stories in education are always about the high achievers, who have always shown great promise from the beginning. and rarely about the students who struggle in learning. This set of students received the labels, and most of them live up to the labels attached to them, because they never received the remediation to close the gaps in their knowledge and foundation skills, and instead get a lot of lessons on self-esteem, motivation and dumb-down curriculum.
I like Dr. Dawn Henwood’ s views on student engagement, empowering schools and particularly the section that focuses on community engagement. This should be mandatory reading for all educrats (system wide) – especially in light of recent events on the southshore, Nova Scotia.
Yes, that stuck out for me as well Steven. How very refreshing actually.
Paul writes: “The CEA claims to have identified “many examples of how educators are trying to innovate their thinking and transform their practices to provide learners educational experiences that develop their ‘21st Century’ competencies”.
What stands in their way of achieving the ideal? “Roadblocks arise” from “systems that are deeply entrenched in traditional ways of learning and teaching.”
Really? Or is it that “21st Century Learning” top-down initiatives lack traction with teachers who remain skeptical of such fuzzy schemes? ”
Teachers remain skeptical because the upper levels and entrench bureaucracy are deeply committed to their progressive ideology and dogma, to their 21st century competencies, without changing the fundamental constructs of schools. Reality in the classroom tells a different story of the many gaps of the students’ foundational knowledge. Hard to motivate and engage students, when their knowledge gaps are getting in the way, and very hard to instill the 21st century competencies that the top educrats wave about.
Below is the list of new members of the CEA, and their short bios. Note quite a few have expertise in educational technology. And there is a few without an education background, and one can draw their own conclusions, why they are needed in the CEA organization. Wonder what the real goals are, that lies behind the statement, ” We are committed to education that leads to greater student engagement; teaching that inspires students and teachers and that causes all students to learn; and schools that ensure both equity and excellence in pursuit of the optimal development of all students.”
http://www.cea-ace.ca/press-release/cea-announces-2011-2012-board-directors-and-council
So where are the Dawn Henwoods’? Working on the ground, dealing with the realities that the CEA does not deal with. The CEA deals with the abstract of what education should be, ignoring the realities on the ground.
Sir Robert Borden Junior High School in Dartmouth, NS, was quite a project for the Halifax Regional School Board and the CEA. Of the 160 schools across Canada participating in the CEA’s WDYDIST initiative, SRB JHS reported “the highest increase in levels of student intellectual engagement.”
Tremendous resources were focused on SRB JHS in an effort to turn-around an under-performing school. From 2007 to 2011, the school was designated for a series of “turn-around” initiatives. In the Fall of 2009, SRB JHS was the first recipient of the Ken Spencer Award (for student leadership efforts) and then it became a so-called “innovation site” for further CEA-driven work promoting student engagement through “inquiry-based learning.”
For the full, in-depth reports, see
http://www.srbjh.ednet.ns.ca/sir_robert_borden/pfi.htm
Securing a 15% increase in student engagement is worth crowing about, but Sir Robert Borden JHS was in a sorry state when the whole initiative was launched in 2007. Back in 2007-08, the Grade 7 to 9 school enrolled just 287 students, but… Some 31% of the students were truant, 608 students were expelled from class, and the school issued 123 disciplinary suspensions. Most students were totally disengaged and about 60% were “apathetic” or hostile toward Mathematics. In short, the school had nowhere to go but up!
With Darlene Fitzgerald as Principal, the school did make a dramatic improvement. In 2009-10, truancy was cut in half to 14%, fewer than half (118) were expelled from class, and fewer than 25 suspensions were issued by the Principal. The school was, without a doubt, more orderly and purposeful.
While school climate improved dramatically, academic achievement still lagged in basic Math operations. Most significantly, the School reported that “53% of our students are driven to achieve mainly because of high teacher and parent expectations, not by personal interest in their work or any other intrinsic factors.” (PFI Report 2009-10, p. 6)
Where might you find the Principal who cleaned-up Sir Robert Borden JHS? She has moved on, to be replaced by a new Principal with a rather unique name: Joe Beuckx. Yes, Sir Robert Borden JHS, the Home of the Bulldogs, is now under new management…
Until those who are hell bent on mass marketing “engagement” of any kind within the public education system and pointing at students as the intended target audience perhaps the marketing tool should be those proven practices, methodologies and measurements that demonstrate how “engaged” the system is in the students BEFORE the system expects anything from students.
Before you engage the public you have to make it interesting and of benefit for them to be engaged in the first place.
With technology out-pacing traditional education what’s educating students is seemingly just a mouse-click away. Engagement on a most personal level and the student never has to leave home.
I don’t trust the 21 Century educators but I don’t trust the 19th Century educators either. Too many of each. Let’s have a little eclectic common sense.
Eclectic a common word used within education circles.
“The Eclectic Teacher
As a practitioner, you have undoubtedly created your own personal theory about how children learn and develop. Take a moment to consider how your theory relates to the explicit theories previously described in this paper (see also Table 1). If you find that you utilize aspects of several different theories, you have taken what is called an eclectic approach. Being eclectic, however, does not mean “going with the flow” or “doing whatever works” (Marion, 2003). Rather, it means that you understand the different theories, can explain your beliefs, and can utilize them to make effective educational decisions. Taking an eclectic approach is believed to be the most practical method for using theories of child development to inform classroom practices because no one theory is comprehensive enough to adequately explain all aspects of development (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004). Our current understanding of developmentally appropriate practices is built on such an eclectic approach. ”
http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=411
If only it was a common approach in the public education system, especially when students are struggling in their learning.
“Eclectic approach
In the move away from teachers following one specific methodology, the eclectic approach is the label given to a teacher’s use of techniques and activities from a range of language teaching approaches and methodologies. The teacher decides what methodology or approach to use depending on the aims of the lesson and the learners in the group. Almost all modern course books have a mixture of approaches and methodologies.”
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/knowledge-database/eclectic-approach
Lots more on the web on eclectic approaches in education. However, the use of eclectic common sense, is used often to defend current approaches and pass approaches, in education, by appealing to the common sense values of the values that is the intended target to be altered. It is only common sense to draw from a number of theories, since no one theory in education, can be applied to all students, either as individuals or as the collective whole. Engagement policies appears to be formed on the basis of many current and past theories under the different fields, but really are selective as well as being within defined parameters that works best for the public education system and its goals, and not so much for the intended targets the students. The students are the ones slated for value changing that is more in keeping with the goals of the education system. To wrap up, the present engagement policies the most important goal is to change the mindset of students, using and drawing from the present day knowledge and education theories, rather than providing the skills needed to change the mindsets of students, especially those who have negative mindsets.
Relax Doug, eclectic common sense, was a topic in grade 11 English, as it was back in the 1700s and still is today a topic that now covers all aspects of fields, under the dogma title, including the Wicca religion. The phrase pretty well has lost its origin meaning in political and religion theories, and now means many things to many different people.
Eclectic common sense? YES!
We look at evidence as best we can
and do stuff that helps
and resist ideological faddism or cynicism or the magic bullets.
This means being open minded, fair-minded, and
critical-minded.
Correct.
Well one ought to look up eclectic common sense, the origins of the phrase, and how it is being used today across society. Common sense, but drop the eclectic because the word has come to mean dogma, ideology, highly selective, and so forth.
If anything, the public education system and its gatekeepers are always looking for the magic bullets, to avoid the hard work required to resist ideology, dogma and quick fixes.
A couple of years back, a new student engagement policy for the low achievers as well as students who had been identified with a disability, was the rage. One day it was my 14 year old turned to speak to the guidance counselor, and answer a few questions, on their feelings and their engagement in school. Within two minutes or so, the interview ended, with the statement of my child. “If I had the correct help in the first place in reading and writing, you would not have dragged me out of my class to discussed my feelings. Now can I go back to the classroom?” But since than, engagement of students are higher now, since the school began the hard work of filling in the academic gaps of students. Amazing high school students wanting to go to school.
Kind of hard to do trig, without the fundamental knowledge and the deep understanding of fractions. and other crucial arithmetic concepts, the very same concepts and foundation knowledge lacking in the current math curriculum and instruction. But than again, John and Doug has said from time to time in many different ways, knowledge is not as important, as the mindset. I suppose you might considered my child a hard case and a poor negative mindset, as many educrats in the pass have said, that I am doing more harm to her self-esteem and confidence, than any of the school policies, that rest on the interpretations of the dogma and ideology of the education theories and pedagogy. The gatekeepers of the education system, are convince dumb-down policies and feel-good lessons for those who struggle in learning work best, based on the education and pedagogical theories, which are not the bad guys, but the interpretations of the theories becomes the policy. I am sure Dewey, if he was living,did not have the attention of the common sense in his theories being turned upside-down to reflect a lowering of standards, based on the interpretations of the gatekeepers and their fanciful ideas and values. .
Eclectic = dogma?
not in the four dictionaries, including two online ones i checked
and NO ONE said that fundamental basic knowledge was not important
remember William Glasser noted that power= mastery over learning, including subject matter and skills
engagement refers to the willingness to put time and effort into worthwhile things- key content being but one
Why pick needless fights — when there are things on which we agree and which if we worked together might have a better shot at making a difference?
Oh yes, my little experiment with blogs proved some of my colleagues to be right and me to be wrong in that i had hope they would be more of a source of new ideas or reframing some old but good ones so that they are more easily understood.
tant pis!
Oh yes, my little experiment with blogs proved some of my colleagues to be right and me to be wrong in that i had hope they would be more of a source of new ideas or reframing some old but good ones so that they are more easily understood.
Perhaps you and your colleagues are both right. For whatever reason, quality online discussion on education issues seems unable to get off the ground in Canada. Not only do we have no blogs of anything approaching the quality of the better American ones, we have no message boards, listservs, or online fora either. A few have come and gone, but none have survived more than a couple of years. The sites we do have tend to feature the same dozen people over and over again.
It’s not a left-vs.-right thing – the liberal/progressive side has had no more success than the “reform” side. There are some good models out there in the USA (and the UK). Canadians, whether educators, parents, or involved citizens, can get involved with some of the quality sites available.
The U.S. also has a large number of excellent discussion fora on Yahoo groups, Google groups and independent sites on a multitude of education issues. You’ll find a number of Canadian regulars there, because there is nothing here to address Canadian issues with the range of issues, depth and quality of analysis, and participation by informed contributors that the US sites have.
I append below a list of some of the best blogs in several categories:
An * indicates the don’t-miss ones (IMO)
Group 1: Center-right to right in political orientation:
*Core Knowledge blog http://blog.coreknowledge.org/
*Rick Hess Straight Up : http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/
*Joanne Jacobs http://www.joannejacobs.com/
*KitchenTable Math http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com
Group 2: Centre-left to left in political orientation:
Schools Matter http://www.schoolsmatter.info/ (caution: some real rubbish here, but one needs to understand the opposition;-)
Bridging Differences http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/
The Education Optimists http://eduoptimists.blogspot.com/
Larry Cuban http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/
Democrats for Education Reform http://www.dfer.org/
Group 3: Hard to pigeonhole but worth following:
Stuart Buck http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/
*Alexander Russo’s This Week in Education: http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/
Curriculum Matters http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/
*Teach Effectively! http://teacheffectively.com/
Dewey to Delpit http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/
No Limits 2 Learning http://nolimitstolearning.blogspot.com/
*LD Blog (good links to research news here) http://ldblog.com/
*The Literacy Blog http://theliteracyblog.com/
*Nurture a Reader http://nurtureareader.blogspot.com/
Group 4: Teacher Blogs
Miss Brave Teaches NYC http://missbrave.blogspot.com/
An Urban Teacher’s Education http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/
P. O’d Teacher http://pissedoffteeacher.blogspot.com/
Mr. Teachbad http://teachbad.com/ (warning: lots of black humour)
Teacher in a Strange Land http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/
Group 5: Currently inactive, but the archives are incredibly rich and worth reading:
*D-Ed Reckoning http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/
Teaching in the 408 http://roomd2.blogspot.com/
*Eduwonkette http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/
*Original KitchenTable Math (the wiki site stopped working properly but what’s available is full of useful links, research resources)
http://www.kitchentablemath.net/twiki/bin/view/Kitchen/WebHome
Group 6: Some good parent blogs, diverse POVs:
Coalition for Kid Friendly Schools http://kidfriendlyschools.blogspot.com/
*Out In Left Field http://oilf.blogspot.com/
Parenting is Political http://northtomom.blogspot.com/
A Blog About School http://ablogaboutschool.blogspot.com/
TDSB, I am curious if you have thought as to the reasons why high quality online discussions are not present in Canada, as it is in the United States. I have over the years, regarding parents sites that are on par with the American ones. Lots or reasons to point to, but overall the public education system discourages online discussions that are open to one and all.
I happened to select one link – http://nurtureareader.blogspot.com/
“Stanovich on Whole Language and Science
Eventually – perhaps not for a great while, but eventually – the weight of empirical evidence will fall on their [whole language proponents’] heads. That direct instruction in alphabetic coding facilitates early reading acquisition is one of the most well established conclusions in all of behavioral science (Adams, 1990; Anderson et al., 1985; Chall, 1983b, 1989; Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1986b). Conversely, the idea that learning to read is just like learning to speak is accepted by no responsible linguist, psychologist, or cognitive scientist in the research community.
pp 399-400.
– Keith Stanovich, Progress in Understanding Reading: Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press, 2000”
http://nurtureareader.blogspot.com/2009/11/stanovich-on-whole-language-and-science.html
If it was not for the American and British sites, I would not have had the opportunity to educate myself on reading, and dyslexia. Thank God for small mercies, because the current public education system does everything in their power to keep information that runs contrary to the agendas, and the ways of the public education system from the public.
What I have wonder over the years, the insiders like yourself do not gather as a force within to change things in reading and math instruction, and all other things in educating the youth by showing the science? Stanovich is a Canadian, and there is a few other respected Canadian researchers in the education field that have been ignored, which is so unlike the American researchers. Today, I read about 4 new books by the American researchers and parents on dyslexia. “Dyslexia is our best, most vivid evidence that the brain was never wired to read,’’ writes Maryanne Wolf, and she’s got the word on why. Wolf is director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts and a professor of child development.”
http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/books/30601134_1_dyslexia-fluent-readers-reading-brain
What are the odds, if any of the above books will be reading material at the board or ministry level?
Now tell me, what are the odds for the sites listed in your last post to appear in any part of the public education system on their sites either directed at the people who work within and to the parents?
The Americans for all their faults concerning the education system, will do everything possible to make the impossible happen. I was told it was impossible and at the very least I was told I was putting in too much effort for little gain. I followed the American example, plus I never have believe that human beings are fixed when it comes to their brains and biology. Too many fixed concepts and ideas within the Canadian education systems, and over the years I swear those within the education system think parents and students are puppets to be guided and forced to live within the fixed concepts and ideas. I dreamt big time, reaching for the stars, and my child who work harder than myself, was rewarded for all the future doors opening up, that were slammed shut, sealed and nailed so many moons ago. She has so many possibilities now, and my dream went beyond the stars. I would have settled for a solid foundation in the 3 Rs, but the education system force me to reach beyond the 3 Rs.
[…] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } educhatter.wordpress.com (via @Educhatter) – Today, 7:17 […]
“… that I had hope they would be more a source of new ideas or reframing some old but good ones…”
———————————————————————————————-
Or, why hope for a source of new ideas when public education is currently subject to a democratic malaise? A dictatorship of educratic reason?
The link to Dr. Dawn Henwood’s report answers the question. Students, parents, family, community engagement among other things.
No, I am talking how the word eclectic is use within the political theories as well as the philosophies based on political, religion, and other intellectual material starting in the 1700s or so, The dictionary meaning is much different than the use of that particular word when emerging political and governance theories were emerging in the 1700s, and eclectic was a word that had a deeper meaning than the dictionary meaning, in the heady world of the 1700s.
From what I have seen, the word has come full circle again, and is in full use in describing the practices and theories such as teaching, medicine, religions such as Wicca, and often seen in the philosophical discussions, once again to describe and defend the dogma or the important tenets/principles of being highly selective to reflect the personal ideology and dogma that an individual holds.
So forgive me, when I went to high school, the language – the meaning of words and the origins of the words were very important to understand the context and hidden meanings of texts and essays, within the time frame and date the article was written. What can I tell you, high school English courses has change dramatically as the math curriculum. One would think, the teens of today are dumber than the teens of the 60s, or that the poor teens of the 60s had such high demands place on them, no wonder the drop-out rate was higher back in the days of the 60s. It all depends on one’s experience and values and how one can be highly eclectic in choosing evidence to support the values that are held in high esteem. The origins of the words in the English language is composed of many languages, and it makes the English language a very adaptable language, words change over time and centuries, and sometimes quickly in a matter of 10 years, and is the only language that has a thesaurus as in the article I read a couple of weeks ago. The English language is not only beautiful, but complicated in the many different meanings of the individual words, but always is growing in adding new words, as well as adding new meanings for the old words.
Actually the origins of the word eclectic are from the Greeks.
“The word eclectic means, “I choose” in Greek. The Eclectics were very progressive and open-minded, and believed in using whatever would best help their patients. In classical Greek Medicine, the term “eclectic” was reserved only for the greatest physicians, like Hippocrates and Galen, who had mastered the art of medicine to such an extent that they were free to pick and choose, and incorporate concepts and treatments from other medical schools and systems into their practice. ”
http://www.greekmedicine.net/history/Greek_Medicine_and_Holistic_Healing.html
When using the phrase, eclectic common sense, it conjures up the image of the elites, the highly skilled not of the common people who are the only ones to have common sense. Now that is in my eyes, and I quite sure the old battle axe of an English teacher I had, would agree with me using the evidence how the meaning of eclectic change over the centuries, but still reflect the the first meaning – I choose.
Drop the eclectic, because truth to be told, every theory, every political treatise, and every person has common sense. Including all of the education and pedagogy theories. Otherwise, nobody would pay attention to it, if it did not ring true to the reader, in some aspects or all of the aspects. I only object to the word, in the education aspect, because sometimes it is not wise to pick and choose the bits and pieces of the different theories and than test them on the students in the classroom. SE and especially in learning disabilities, within the education system, the policies are the bits and pieces from the science and research fields, with large tracks of the the various education pedagogical theories and other education research. The sad part, decisions are made not on the science, and solutions that emerge are the water-down solutions based some what on science. but for the most part on the dogma and ideology of the decision makers.
Does anyone see the irony in using eclectic – I choose – and the last thing the public education would want to see, is the individual users being allow to choose, unless it is under the carefully chosen parameters where choice is allow and encourage. I bit more choosing from students, may also encourage engagement among the students.
Eyes roll.
I think one way to have a better blog is to allow every poster only 5 posts on each subject Paul brings up.
We do need to hear from more people and get varied views.
I can see clearly in my view that education to many is an art form-I see it as a science.I believe in testing and accountability-even if you teach history-has the teacher covered the material and has 80 percent of the class passed?
Let alone for Reading and Math where pedagogy is vital.
Student engagement?
Success breeds success and engagement-the more you do well,the more engaged you are.I also believe in multisensory Teacher led classrooms by teachers that are subject matter experts.The Unions have made a mess of things for the students but have drastically improved pay for teachers.
We`re all human,some teachers excel,others are horrid,those that are weak should be fired-that`s the biggest problem-zero consequences.
Try to raise a kid like that!
I believe technology is a tool only but if things don`t change for kids and frankly I see little hope other than in Private schools where accountability is king,we may need to use technology to teach and use teachers as supplementary tools.
Not a bad idea. Nancy posts too much.
Doug:
Not a bad idea. Nancy posts too much.
_______________________________________________________
And posts of this type are what is keeping people away.
Yes-I believe the tone is low and rather than debate we squabble-there is a huge difference.
I am up to 3 here:)Doug,you should not say eyes roll to Nancy`s profound understanding of education from a parent perspective..parents have a whole different experience than educators like you and representatives of Union mentality-we can disagree with you and offer an equal perspective from a different view point…we`re not here to win,we`re here to debate.
Eyes roll is not a statement of debate…
Thanks Joanne, and I will add, that engagement is a two-way street, and not an activity that requires only one. In the same student engagement is not an activity that is wholly dependent on the students, but rather a number of environment variables constraining or promoting student engagement. If a student is sent to the school office, for pointing out a mistake of a teacher, would not anyone think that this student is engaged in his learning and work? Some within the education system, would think otherwise, and have the supporting evidence to why this student is not engage in his learning. I would have the evidence, that some within the education system are more interested in maintaining their authority position, keeper of knowledge, and would see this student as being a threat.
Student engagement, according to the research and practices of the education system? Or student engagement according to the comprehensive research and beyond inside and beyond the public education system’s walls? Perhaps engaging students is such a difficult challenge, because student engagement policies are based on the research and practices within the public education system’s walls, and therefore the policies that are formed, are suspect, because the original research and development of practices are based on pedagogy and practices of the teachers’ faculties.
A professor of an education faculty, on engagement –
Enhancing Student Engagement in e-Learning
“The Special Session on Enhancing Student Engagement in e-Learning (ESEeL) aims to bring together researchers and practitioners working on theory, tools and techniques for engaging students in e-learning environments. Authors are welcome to submit papers, discuss theory or research issues, develop problems or demonstrate tools. Technology resources such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, games, simulations, e-Portfolios, webquests, computer-assisted learning tutorials, video-enhanced learning and other technological approaches are also of interest.
The special session will also offer the opportunity to fill the gap between academic researchers, practitioners and industry. ESEeL encourages authors to submit papers describing original work, including methods, techniques, recent advances, applications and tools.”
http://www.csedu.org/ESEeL.aspx
Most education conferences, summits, and seminars, the keynote speakers are always the ones that hail from the education faculties, and if not, have very close ties with the education system. Where are the outside researchers? Standing outside, looking in, because often the outside researchers and their research runs counters to the ideology and dogma of the teachers’ faculties, and the education departments of universities.
Joanne has stated very simply, “Success breeds success and engagement-the more you do well,the more engaged you are.I also believe in multisensory Teacher led classrooms by teachers that are subject matter experts.” and it is stated in much of the research outside of the education system. And I am quite sure, in quite a few papers on parenting and children. Simple parameters to follow by, the how-tos is the more difficult part, but not with the perplexing education system.
How many students are disengage at our schools because of the policies and practices of the education system? No wonder, the private tutoring industry is a billion dollar plus industry, the parents turn to them, to have their kids re-engaged in their education, and disengage at the school level, depending on what is being taught. Engagement requires the active participation of all parties, and not the policies that strives to determined what is engagement and what is not engagement.
Or a comment on the WISE site.
“Thank-you! It is a relief to finally hear a teacher admit some of the problems of this program, as well as the impact it is having on the students! As a parent (and former teacher), it has been very frustrating to NOT be heard by teachers AND the principal, and, instead, be fed the jargon and their support of this ridiculous program. I get told to attend the meetings with the educational consultants so I can learn how to help my child with this math. I wonder what they think that we are spending our evenings doing already!!! When parents have to spend countless hours trying to unravel the mess that is being created at school in a subject area, it is rather obvious that the program being used is a miserable failure!”
http://wisemath.org/join/
Parents and their children are certainly engaged, but the educrats would say otherwise. Given the current curriculum and teaching practices, especially in math, no wonder the students are disengage in their math classes, and rather spend their time texting, and go on facebook.
A passage from John Taylor Gatto’s acceptance speech, awarded from the New York State Senate:
“No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes, or politicians in civics classes or poets in english classes. The truth is that schools don’t teach anyone anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools, as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms there individual contributions. Although teachers do care and work very, very hard, the institution is pychopathic; it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell where he must memorize that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.”
John Taylor Gatto – Dumming us Down; The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, New York City Teacher of the Year, Jan. 31/1990
—————————————————————————————————
Opinion: Could it be that the hypothetical poet Gatto refers to, was in the middle of academic engagement? That he was pushed along to a superficial attainment level.
Let’s make Gatto’s picture a little bit larger as he deduced back in 1990. What if the student’s move to the next cell is really a social crisis in community and identity as he implies?
“Two institutions presently control our children’s lives; television and schooling, in that order. Both of these reduce the real world of wisdom, fortitude, temperance and justice, to a never-ending non stop abstraction.”
However
“… A great deal of time was spent in community pursuits, practicing affection, meeting and studying every level of the community, learning how to make a home, and dozens of other tasks necessary to becoming a whole man or woman.”
I see intellectual engagement as both an art and science.
http://southshorenow.ca/archives/2012/010412/news/index001.php
In this article there is not much in the way of engagement here (unless one included process driven methodology) or substance for that matter.
All of that John Taylor Gatto stuff is cheap and easy. I have lived my life where politics meets education. The course I taught at York U for four years was “The Politics of Ontrio Education”. Critics blame “the system” man the system is broken.
The system is US in the same way as the government is US. The MAJORITY wanted Harper then Layton but not Iggy so that is what we got. The public school system is a giant compromise between warring factions, left right centre, labour, buiness, environment, religion, etc etc etc.
The system is the Peace Treaty between all of these factions in the way that Europe in 1919 was the shape of the wars 1914-1918 and some before.. Nobody much was happy with Europe in 1919 but it ended the war.
It is very easy to throw stones at the “system”. t is much more difficult to marshall a MAJORITY to change it. Until the day critics can show politicians that their views represent a majority, they will not get very far.
If you don’t like it boo hoo. You don’t get your money back to do your own thing any more than you do in any other field, police, library, health, roads,
The institution is pychopathic, not democratic or “us”.
agree Steven. The difference is clear.
Looks like all hell’s going to break loose in Ontario in the coming months. Just how will students and their families be “engaged” in the battle that will ensue…..and you know that the union spin’s already in the works. McGuinty the Knife is just getting started only he’s using Don Drummond to deliver the oh, so sad news.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120105/ontario-budget-cuts-core-services-mcguinty-120105/20120105?hub=OttawaHome
This is my sixth post on this thread- sorry for this as the 5 post rule is good.
I ask that we return to the topic so I can be informed.
Thanks
Perhaps John, you can provide the rest of us with some information.
I wonder, (as a parent) what sort of strategies a teacher would provide for students when forced with problems or decisions requiring serious intellectual engagement? Should we continue to look outside the system for answers?
You may or may not agree, but many consider the system fractured at the moment.
I feel sorry for Ontario students, because they will become the victims of the interests and agendas within the education system. The peace treaty Doug talks about, is all about protecting one another’s best interests, including fighting the governments of the day. It is why there is courses in every teacher faculty in, the politics of education. Surfing through the programs offerings of York and Toronto, one begins to wonder why they are training teachers, when most of the courses are heavy discourses in philosophies crossing and bisecting at the political windows in society. Training teachers seems to have become the training job, to shape the very values and culture of students, Where knowledge is no longer important, but to have students reach the potential of the ideal citizen, to become the foot soldiers within society, and the future cheerleaders to serve the best interests and agenda of the public education system.
No wonder engagement is such a challenge, when curriculum and even in actual instruction is immerse and coloured with the ideology and dogma of political treatises and theory. Most kids want to be taught, shown the ABCs without the dogma and ideology, as well useful and efficient ways of doing things. After all, many things outside the education system, instructs on the ABCs without the bother of the metaphysics mumbo jumbo thoughts that learning to ride a bike, is a political act and a very social act, If the kid keeps falling, the educator sees it as some metaphysics screw-up, rather than a balance problem or the kid need a good pair of training wheels. A good thing that the education system does not undertake to teach bike riding, or otherwise a lot of students will become disengage, as well as never being taught.
Disengagement is the norm within the education system, but it is not with the students. It is the adults within the public education system that have disengaged themselves from the students, and their realities. Bottom line, they see the students as some abstract concept, and try to imposed the abstract concept unto the students, ignoring the realities of the students.
A year ago I worked with a small group of middle school students from upstate New York. They ranged from academic star but shy to dyslexic who had been held back a year. We accomplish a lot in a week looking at issues around teacher and student use of technology.
Two things that worked to offer one answer to Steven’s query were.
– the use of a rubric we designed and they used to make sure they were on track (formative assessment and quality feedback)
– a contrat we had in which they would, among other things
1. Treat each other with respect
2. Finish all tasks on time and with quality
I would
1. Listen to them
2. Give them tasks hard enough to be challenging since they hated doing easy boring stuff
3. If they needed help they would ask and i would support.
They had no problems working hard as long as they got help when needed and were listened to (teenagers!)
How do I know this worked?
– they did their project
– the hundred + teachers, parents and administrators were very impressed with their work
and my teaching since I am a faculty of ed person and subject to the stereotype that i can’t teach- I love proving folks wrong! 🙂
– the students told me what worked
This is akin to parents asking students to choose between a number of alternatives rather than just saying “no”.
As researcher John Hattie and others now increasingly noted
– less monologue and more dialogue (general principle)
my example offers a few specifics as to how this is done
This is my 7th post. Apologies but i was asked to provider an answer
thanks John – a refreshing post! Students asking for help and getting it. I like the contract idea and challenging students, not boring them.
As John, has pointed out it rests on the teacher in the classroom, and it has been confirmed on the many studies that teachers is the most important factor in student engagement. As John has outlined, it does work, if the local high school can be used as evidence, as well as the positive conversations when my 16 year old comes home at the end of the day. I suppose it hinges on everyone carrying out their roles, be respectful, ensuring assignments are done on time within a reasonable time frame, and the teacher following through on listening, task challenge and help students when they request it.
John, have you found at the high school level, students not asking for help? Just wondering, because I found this with my own 16 year old child as par for the course, and in our little chats about the happenings at school. It is not that students are afraid to asked for help, but rather they can’t asked for help, because they don’t know what the problems are. At the end the students who don’t asked for help, are the students who have had negative experiences asking for help in the earlier grades. I am trying to instill in my child, to become more comfortable with her dyslexic, and get to know what hinders learning and studying. For her, it is often the beginning of learning new knowledge, rather than the middle or the end that hinders learning. In english class, it shows the most, but she along with quite a few students, will not seek help from the teacher, and yet the teacher is quite aware of the weaknesses and strengths in all of her students. Teachers cannot be mind readers, nor should the students expect to be helped, when they do not asked for help. Just wondering, because I know that students should learned to have the ability of asking for help, knowing that no one will think less of them, in doing so.
My last post on this thread is one of large agreement with Nancy.
Teenagers for a variety of reasons-
– adolescent minds
– teachers who do not not listen in earlier grades
do not ask when they get in trouble because they figure, “what will it get me”?
Eleanor Karp in a study of teenagers and dropouts done in Ontario in the mid 1980s
called these people, the “closet confused”
so
how to change this pattern? in addition to John Hattie’s conclusions and mine noted above
– have students work in pairs or small groups with appropriate tasks that require talk so that they get used to speaking in public
– high schools spend too much time
selecting talent
and not
developing talent.
The world has changed since 1960 and we have not kept up with this.
This does not just apply to the new tech stuff.
I am working with a number of American teachers on this very issue.
“high schools spend too much time
selecting talent
and not
developing talent.”
I really like this one, I ended up developing the talent masked by the dyslexia at home, And one day, working hard at home, the teachers started to take notice………and from that day forward, the teachers were working cooperatively with me, nurturing the hidden talents of my child. It all started with a speech, that had everyone laughing, on cafeteria food. One of her talents, is her keen sense of humor, and prefect timing. She was dreading making a speech, including writing it, and I hit the Internet in search of tips and advice. Dyslexics should write according to their natural tempo and rhythm inside their heads, so the words flow out without missing a beat. Once I taught her the method, a bit of a practice, she spoke on cafeteria food, and I typed, I typed because she still had major difficulties with the mechanics of writing. All done and memorized within 45 minutes on a Sunday afternoon. It was memorized easily, because she spoke to her beat of the brain. Many of a student and adults, still talk about the speech to this day, and it help her to move up the social ladder, when it comes to humor. To this day, I remind her to write to her tempo especially in exams, when she puts the pen in her hand, to allow the connection to the brain’s tempo.
Sounds silly, but the tip came from a renown dyslexic from the science field, and from another site, the White House on what it takes to make a good speech. It works for my child, and that is all that matters. ,
It also worked for the dyslexic kid who after several years delivered a great speech in front of a hundred folks. She was scared and was afraid she would muff her lines. A proud moment her her, her parents, and me!!
Glad to hear it that I am not out in left field.because there is little if any research on the topic of speaking to the tempo of the mind. I have not search for a few years, but perhaps they might be more on it. There is so much that has not been research regarding dyslexics. The little things, such as difficulty with left and right, and handwriting problems. Or the bigger and more common one, not be able to read an analog clock. I thought I had that one licked, but it is back again to where it is no longer an automatic skill.
One challenge is that “dyslexia” is a catch-all term that they include a variety of reading challenges of different origins and likely needing somewhat different approaches. Cancel is similar in medicine.
Being patient, teaching structures, providing scaffolding, and quality feedback likely the single best approach for all of the varieties.
We know many learner who are challenged to read in the early grades blossom or at least function well later.
One approach that I know is to give the student reading based on his/her interest and passion. They are more likely to try and not give up if it is stuff they are interested in. See Rosemary Fink’s work.
Agree, no dyslexic is alike, but have similar problems, but a teacher using a number of approaches, discarding what does not work, and usually come up with a approach composed of many that is custom made for the student works well. My child is relatively easy, if it is all new material, forget the constructivist approaches, and the other new approaches, and just show her the how-tos, and she will arrived at a deeper understanding, and quite often deeper than the other students. It is why, I was quite please to see the teachers looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the students, and it has given the teachers a more efficient way of providing help in the classroom, giving the help that the student needs, without increasing the frustration level. For my 16 year old, it is usually something that she missed at the beginning of the lesson, that she is not making the connections to the more advance knowledge, and in answering the assignment questions. However from what I can gathered from my child’s chats, that all the students in the classroom, are seeing that they all have strengths and weaknesses, and again for the students who were once seen as having less academic potential, are now seen more or less the equals of the more capable students. The credit goes to the teachers, because it has definitely change the way the other high achievers saw my child. Not a word on reminding my child, her previous lower status in the early grades, but lots on seeing her as their equal.
Took a long time, but it really should have started back at the primary grades, especially if one of the goals is group learning and peer mentoring. The students are learning at this late stage, how to respect each other and getting along, and this type of learning and engagement was never at the elementary level. My child hated group work, and as for mentoring, she hated that too, because the kids grew frustrated with her, and dismissing her answers as being wrong. By grade 4, group work became homework at home, because she knew she was right, but did not have enough knowledge to convince the kids. With a little bit help from me in the mechanics such as cutting, and drawing a straight line, and sometimes the print shop, as well as the opportunities for little writing lessons, she produced the group work assignment. I left it in his hands to decide, if she wanted the others included, but I stress it is the right way to go. The first time, the kids turned her down flat, but after seeing the grade, the kids who had so-so marks, asked to have their name included. From that point for a long while, there was a dividing line between the higher achievers and the lower achievers. The higher achievers continued to see her as being dumb, but not so much with the lower achievers. As the years have rolled by, as her skills have developed and steady upward achievement, she is comfortable doing group work and is quite good at peer mentoring, But it has a hitch, if the student or students have lower grades, she takes over the majority of the work, because she does not want her average to dropped, and if she is with a group that are her equal, an equal workload more or less. Just recently, she has been told to knock it off with helping students who do not contributed. She responded, I can’t do that, the students will never learned and they too need help to get a passing grade.
I never thought I would see the day where she would be capable of standing on her own two feet academically speaking, as well as being bold enough to stand on her principles and what she thought was right. Provide the students with the proper skills and background knowledge, and even the less capable students will shine. Part of engagement, is to developed the masked talents of the individual students, but first the weaknesses need to be rooted out.
Now tell me something, as I have been searching for a satisfactory answer but I have not found one. Some dyslexics seem to share it, as well as my child, and it probably helped her to passed in the primary grades. The more difficult work she will do well in, compared to the simple and less complicated work on tests. Showed more often in math, but it still shows up today, in all its glory, if she does not follow the strategies that I have taught her. Put is simply, 1 + 7 will be incorrect, and on the next page, 1 + 12 + 14 + 2 + 7 will always be correct. It was once thought of as her being careless in the early grades, but not anymore, and has more to do her dyslexic mind than being careless. There has been a bit of research on it, but again it is one of the traits that not all dyslexics share, and I am curious as to your thoughts on it. Einstein had this trait, and has been reported that he had great difficulty adding simple numbers up, but fluent in his physics work and his theory. There is also a top physics scientist in England, who followed the same pathway as my child, who has to think and pause when it comes to simple multiplication of single digits, and yet is so fluid with her physics work and equations.
One small question, John. Following your project in New York State, I would like to know if a single teacher with a full classroom (20-40 students depending on the area) would be able to accomplish what you did with your “small” group?
Yes.
Read John Hattie’s summary of research in Visible Learning
or the summaries by Robert Marzano et al.Instruction that Works
Early in my career I had students do peer editing of essays before handing in
3 classes of grade 10a
the scores they ranged in from Sept. end of Jan.
ALL went up
in the case of students below 90% a minimum of 10%
It is not about perfection
It is about improvement
That is possible with good teaching.
I forgot
With a full class it takes longer as noted above in the peer editing example.
So with a qualified EA (stress qualified) there shouldn’t be much of a problem.
no guarantees in teaching
nothing works equally well for all students all; the time
I have been around to see the ugly, the bad, and the good
lots (unfortunately) in all categories
but much more good is possible
I have seen it
have read about it
and on occasion
have done it
if it were “no problem” . . .
good teaching is always a challenge- hard work
No one said it was easy.
Not doing anything is easy.
Our online discussion on Student Re-Engagement prompted me to dig a little deeper into the CEA “What Did You Do in School Today?” initiative to test some of my perceptions and to provide a reasonably sound case study. I did not have to look far. Out of 160 participating schools across Canada, the school that scored the greatest gain in “student intellectual engagement” was Sir Robert Borden Junior High in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
My case study of the “Turn-Around” project at Sir Robert Borden JHS contains a few revelations. In 2007-08, SRB JHS was a very troubled school and the HRSB project, led by Darlene Fitzgerald, is a story of school renewal:
http://halifax.openfile.ca/halifax/text/hard-task-fixing-sir-robert-borden-junior-high
Being an education critic sends off all kinds of signals. As an independent consultant, I’m prepared to recognize achievements as well as to perform the important work of the “watchdog” on accountability. It’s easier to be an armchair critic than to plumb the depths for possible answers to what ails the public school system. Saving a troubled Junior High provides reason for hope.
Very good point Paul, there are more “armchair quarterbacks” in the education field than anywhere I know. Many have not had a new thought or insight in 30 years. They repeat cliches that have been disproven 1000X such as grade retention is a good idea. Yikes.
This post has obviously struck a chord, judging by the number of comments which, unfortunately, I can’t read entirely. I have been mulling over this topic for a number of years, and these are my thoughts:
Student engagement is not going to be achieved through top-down, teacher-centred approaches that emphasize ‘teaching’ over ‘learning’. In my view, there is going to have to be a radical overhaul of the current system to implement the following:
i) Ability-grouping rather than age-grouping. Our anti-elitist, PC society can’t seem to get its head around this, but children are not widgets. Bright students will not be engaged by a dumbed-down curriculum and having disengaged students sets a tone for the rest of the class.
Each child should study each subject at the level which allows him or her to learn something new every day. Their birthdate should be utterly irrelevant.
ii) Children should be grouped into “classes” of no more than 6-10 students of like ability. They should be mentored rather than taught be someone with appropriate skills in the particular subject area. Children should be permitted to structure their own learning as much as possible, while meeting certain minimal milestones in core areas.
When they become engaged in a topic, they should be permitted to explore it as fully and deeply as they wish, and no bell should ring to tell them that they must stop being engaged. It devalues the whole concept of learning.
iii) Students should be given the tools to learn for themselves. This includes access to technology (not gimics for technology’s sake, but useful tools). Mentors should facilitate learning, point the student in new directions, help with obtaining resources and producing results, but should not think of themselves as the repository of knowledge, to be doled out incrementally in accordance with an immoveable lesson plan.
Factory workers, who are over-supervised, highly-regimented, and work to clock on pieces of a product (rather than a big picture), are not known to be engaged in their ‘profession’. Why should we expect children, operating under a similar model, to be any more engaged?
I may be an armchair critic, but I am also directly involved in the education of my own children as their homeschool ‘mentor’. They are highly engaged in their learning and, at ages 9 & 11, have begun to see their schooled peers becoming disengaged with school and learning. Part of this is negative peer influence, but part is the fact that kids are sent off to school thinking that this is where they will learn, and for many, their youthful curiosity becomes squelched by rubrics and plans and rules and limits. I see this particularly with boys.
Undoubtedly this post will draw fire from the anti-homeschool camp, but let me tell you that I never set out to do this — I’m neither religious nor dogmatic — I responded to a need when I was told that public school could not accommodate my children’s advanced academic abilities. My husband and I have 13 year post-secondary education between us and feel well-equipped for the role (and we hire in tutors/mentors/online courses where necessary).