Education is now a tremendously high profile public issue in the United States unlike in Canada. Since the election of President Barak Obama in November 2008, the new administration has made education reform a top priority, recasting the discredited NCLB into the “Race to the Top” initiative, fuelled by $4.35 billion in federal stimulus spending. In a bold move to win bi-partisan support, Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan has introduced a new “turnaround schools” policy, embraced “charter schools,” renewed the commitment to high-stakes testing, established a “We Are Teachers” mentoring program, and proposed that teacher salaries be based upon merit, tied to student test results.
The American education debate has become volatile, driven largely by an almost relentless drive to close the gap in international test results or to reverse the cycle of decline. Leading education authorities like Andy Smarick, a senior fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, are urging the current “Education President” to go even further. In a highly influential Winter 2010 feature essay for Harvard University’s Education Next magazine, Smarick claims that “U-Turn” policies based upon “turnarounds” have so far utterly failed to “drastically improve America’s troubled urban school systems.” “When conscientiously applied strategies fail to improve America’s lowest performing schools, we need to close them” and to begin anew with “fresh start” schools.
The U.S.“School Wars” now have a new front. Well-known New York University professor and author, Diane Ravitch, has joined the fray, co-founding “Common Core” in staunch opposition to the “21st century skills” curriculum and the current testing mania, claiming that such reforms threaten to destroy the teaching of “core knowledge essential to critical thinking.” Her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010), has hit like a bombshell. The current obsession with testing and chartering, she charges, is not producing higher standards and may well imperil the system.
Why is Canadian education, by comparison, like “sleepy hollow”? Surveying the scene, Atlantic Canada remains a sea of relative tranquility with the odd cove of ripply waters. Public concern about the state of education still runs high, judging from recent Nik Nanos opinion polls (September 2009) placing the issue (at 7%) third in importance and ahead of the environment, and even higher among the 18 to 34 age group. Yet education in Canada is the preserve of the provinces and that may explain why, as a public issue, it lurks in the shadows. Perhaps that’s just as well. Now, it’s your turn.
The new Diane Ravitch book has certainly gone off like a bomb in the USA. If you read her intro available at Amazon, she says she held out great hope for “reform” which in the USA largely meant testing, charters vouchers etc. She has turned sharply against this direction and now calls testing and charters the problem not the solution.
People tend to misunderstand the motivation against national standards and national testing. NCLB allows states to set up their own testing regime.
There is no way states like Louisiana and Mississippi will ever allow national standards and testing because it will show that these states, below the Masoon-Dixon line are way behind in education. The states that will be way ahead are the north-east and the west coast (blue states) the red states, Republican dominated states will be shown as the red-neck states and masssively fail national tests.
When it comes to national curriculum, the “national consensus” will favour giving hero status to Ceasar Chavez, Thurgood Marshal, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, M.L.King, Nelson Mandela, etc. Texas is doing its best these days to paint these figures out of history. Local “states rights” histories allow conservative red neck states to wallow in their old Tea Party throw back knuckle-dragging mentality a little longer.
These idiotic reasons are the reasons that they have no national standards. Canada does not either but at least the ministers meet and try to work out some kinks.
The late Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan once quipped that educational success in the USA seemed to be determined by proximity to the Canadian border, the closer the better.
It will be of passing interest to your readers to note that the more powerful the NEA-AFT is in a state, the better the educational results. The so-called “right-to-work” states where teacher unions do not have a closed shop, have the worst results.
is this dude for real? If he’s from Canada Paul than your “sleepy hollow” question is very well timed.
Tell me Paul, who are the Made-in Canada movers and shakers in education? You know the ones I mean. The ones we in our own country consider our “experts”.
I’m quite tired of the same old rhetoric by the over 40 set.
Your comment really got me thinking. If we are a “sleepy hollow” in educational reform thinking, what are reasons for that complacency? Why do we tend to look to the United States for cutting edge ideas in school reform? And where are the younger Canadian voices in the raging debates over the state of education?
The old warriors are still in the field here in Canada, repeating the same messages and recycling ideas. Hilda Neatby’s So Little for the Mind (1953), the Hall Dennis Report (1968), and perhaps For the Love of Learning (1995) tend to frame most of our debates. The Canadian Education Association (CAE) and the OSSTF/NSTU do play a role. They can always be counted upon as cheerleaders and lobbyists for more funding.
We have produced very few original thinkers. Hilda Neatby, Lloyd Dennis, and Michael Fullan stand out as possible exceptions. That is why, I think, we tend to rely upon Andrew Nikiforuk, Malkin Dare and SQE to feed our thirst for new (outside the edubox) ideas.
Of the rising generation, I could only identify three educational writers who are producing thought-provoking books and toying with original ideas. One is certainly Mark Kingwell, the University of Toronto philosopher with a talent for asking the right questions. The Canadian writer, Carl Honore, is now our most stimulating thinker. His 2008 best seller UNDER PRESSURE has exposed the “culture of hyperparenting” and warned us about the dangers of “coddling kids.” Another Canadian author who deserves a wider audience is Dr. Michael Ungar, a Dalhousie University social psychologist. Oddly enough, he’s bigger in the U.S. than here in Canada.
It’s slim pickings….Have I missed anyone?
To JTC,
All of your incredible thinkers in the USA have thought you into 36th place on international testing. We dull Canadians have stumbled into second place behind Finland. We are #1 in the world in getting students through a post secondary program but don’t listen to us, we have no idea what we are doing.
No mention of USA in my post whatsoever Doug Little.
It’s just about time that we started home-growing our own
data to support a progressive and reformed education direction.
We’re not Finland.
Paul,
May I ask you where you see Canada’s future in education heading?
I can’t for the life of me subscribe to looking back and repeating the same old mistakes of times gone bye.
At some point the bubble of the “more money” mantra has to burst because the public is going to want proof that their money is being used effectively. That includes academic results by literate and numerate students.
I can’t think of anything that would result in more pride for a classroom teacher than having proof through measurement of basic skills of their effectiveness.
If Canada has success stories, where are they because it occurs to me that if educators were certain of their abilities and successes they’d meet competition and ranking head on and confidently in a “bring it on” attitude.
The fact that the rejection of ranking and measurement in fact leaves folks more suspicious of the rejection than anything else.
Little seems to think that all those “bad” reforms did nothing to improve education, and he is probably right. What he fails to mention is that the other half of the equation, the “system” didn’t want to change a thing and in Canada there is no other place to go when the system is unresponsive. Zero incentive to change=Zero change.
We have 2 possible futures. 1) Follow the USA with testing, charters, vouchers, teacher bashing, merit pay, Mayor control etc. This direction will waste an entire generation and at the end we will have nothing.
2) Follow enlightened jurisdictions like Finland that is the only one doing better than we are but also keep a close eye on states on the upswing (Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina) and states in rapid decline (California, South Carolina, Texas….). We also need to keep a close eye on Singapore and South Korea as countries making very rapid progress.
You really must read Linda Darling-Hammonds latest book and I believe Magnum Opus, The Flat World and Education. Spending more actually does improve education results dramatically but the investments must be very strategic. “Throwing money at education” does not work. The investments need to be made in teacher upgrading, much higher levels of teacher education and certification. If it were actually up to me I would demand at least an MEd to be admitted to teachers college. HS teachers could qualify with a masters in their discipline.
Certification should be a 3 year process at full state expense with a salary of a first year teacher paid just to attend this elite academy.
Next we need to consistently continue to lower class sizes until we finally reach classes of 18 and I mean caps here not ratios, We have the ratios already.
We need to update science labs, drama facilities etc. We should have a full size swimming pool in most schools open for public use after 6PM. Our computer systems need to be top of the line. Every teacher needs to be issued a laptop by the board. Soon we are headed to every kid being given a kindle. Every classroon needs to be wi-fi.
The beauty of all of this is that it is totally free. Since education and ECE (I would extend down to 2 year olds) returns many times its investment in productivity gains, efficiency gains, reduced back burner expenses on welfare, EI, jails, courts, cops, even health outcomes it is all better than free, like the LCBO the more you spend on education the lower the provincial debt will be.
Our goal must be that not one single nation can come close to us in any educational catagory. We must be first in PISA, First in Timms, first in university grads, first in PHds per capita, first in citizens with post secondary education. We must not be able to find a catagory where we are not first and by a wide margin.
As a result we will have a fully employed happy high wage, high value added, high standard of living country full of happy fullfilled citizens.
If you believe in Canada, I’m sure you agree, Go Canada.
When it comes to our ongoing educational discussions, we are learning that “less is more.” Fulminations and epistles can easily morf into bafflegab. Nevertheless, I cannot resist…
Over the past year, the American “School Wars” have claimed a new victim: Linda Darling-Hammond. As a leading educational thinker at Stanford, Darling-Hammond was the odds-on favourite to be named Secretary of Education. She was, as Gerald Bracey wrote (The Huffington Post, January 4, 2009), likely the victim of “a hatchet job.” In the internal battle, Arne Duncan emerged on top and Darling-Hammond cast aside. She was, rightly or wrongly, painted as the choice of the “educational establishment” and a “teachers’ union tool.”
After studying Darling-Hammond’s most recent work, I see it a little differently. One of her recent Educational Leadership articles, focusing on International Comparisons in Education, left me wondering where she really stood on the question of standards. In my Graduate Educatiion class, we came to the conclusion that she had fallen into the “excellence for all” camp. More than anyone else, she has also been responsible for promoting Finland as a model worthy of emulation. Her new book, The Flat World and Education (January 2010), further confirms that impression. She’s all but abandoned the excellence agenda in favour of “closing the gap” and reducing the drop-out rate. In short, mainstream Canadian educational thinking.
Diane Ravitch has much to offer us. Her 2010 book, The Death and Rise of the Great American Educational System, will surprise many. Breaking from her past position, she now says that “quick fixes” like testing and charter schools will not likely lead to higher standards, more engaged young citizens, or even better schools. The testing movement, believe it or not, has “hijacked” the standards agenda and practically destroyed critical thinking in many schools by decimating the teaching time devoted to history and the social sciences. Amid the public clamour over the latest wave (the “turnaround schools” strategy) she warns us not to lose sight of what is truly fundamental: good, knowledge-rich curriculum, motivated, quality teachers, informed and engaged students, and school conditions which make learning possible.
At last, some independent, ideology-free thinking!
Linda Darling-Hammond has made a career of studying the very best education systems and isolating their chief characteristics. She has concluded, in the book Paul referred to above, come to the conclusion that the money, (more is better) should be spent on creating the highest possible teachers through high levels of education and high levels of certification. After this, class sizes is #2 in line for funding. She supports balanced literacy, inquiry learning and critical thinking.
The closing the gap agenda is 1000 X more important than the so-called excellence agenda. As a matter of fact, the fastest route to excellence is equity.
It is very good that Diane Ravitch has turned on charters and testing. They were always a dead end and a critical waste of time. You would not be surprised I think at the number of times Diane agrees with Deborah Meier in Education Week. Meier would be seen to be a few steps to Diane’s(I am a tough liberal) position.
Paul may be hinting that LDH is “ideological”. That hardly makes her wrong. The American progressive movement has been set back by idiots (who everybody knows are also crooks) like Al Sharpton who attemps to say “it is the teacher’s fault.”
I say OK lets do an experiment. Lets switch an entire staff, principal and all from the Bronx and Staten Island. In Toronto we could switch an entire staff between Forest Hill PS and Nelson Mandela PS. According to idiots like Sharpton and Cory Brooker, the following year, Nelson Mandela will come first and Forest Hill will come last in Toronto. Every single person in the know will tell you that it makes almost no difference. The problem is that POVERTY is 99% congruent with low EQAO scores. Can it be mitigated? Yes it can. I have already said how over and over.
Thank-you Paul.
We need more of that independent, ideology-free thinking
right here is seems.
Like there is something called ideology-free thinking. Sounds like an oxymoron.