Education reformers in the United States are prone to inflating expectations and promising the world. Safely perched on the North American sidelines, the American “School Wars” are a spectacle to behold. Since the launch of the Soviet Sputnik, the education system has been another front in the high stakes competition for world dominance. Under President Barak Obama, the nation-wide Education Reform agenda is popularly billed as “Race to the Top.” Yet a recent Common Core study of international education standards lauded both Finland and Alberta for their test results, while painting a grim picture of U.S. achievement levels.
Surveying Canadian education reform is next to impossible. The Canadian Council on Learning, founded in 2004, has done its best to produce comparative data. Without any real federal presence in education, taking the pulse involves assessing all 10 provinces and three territories and trying to make some sense of a system with some 5 million students, 375 different school boards and about 15,000 schools. Since Charles Ungerleider’s Failing Our Kids (2003), no one in Canada has even attempted to take stock of the state of public education.
Canada’s provinces are simply all over the map when it comes to school reform. Provincial and board testing programs are finally in place, providing parents, for the first time, with current student test results. The Early Learning Agenda, promoted by Dr. Fraser Mustard, is driving education reform initiatives in Ontario, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island. The Toronto Board of Education is experimenting with broadening school choice within public education, without any reference to Alberta’s earlier reforms. A few big city boards, most notably the Halifax Board, are hunkered down essentially replicating largely discredited American-style testing regimes.
Ungerleider’s 2003 book captured well the puzzling Canadian “edu-babble” on the subject of comparative educational standards. “Public schooling,” he insisted, ” has never been healthier nor at greater risk.” (p. 9) He gauged the health of the system by citing the rising “attainment levels” and recent PISA results in reading, science, and mathematics. All of the threats he traced back to the incursion of “market forces” into the Canadian system. We were, according to Ungerleider’s peculiar logic, “ruining our public schools” by expecting too much of teachers and students.
Americans, on the other hand, may lead the world in overblown rhetoric about “school reform.” That is why Robert J. Samuelson’s recent Washington Post column (September 6, 2010) really hit home and attracted widespread attention in the United States. For once, an American education critic took a step back and took a hard, dispassionate look at what wave after wave of school reform has actually achieved for students. With 56 million children returning to the nation’s 133,000 schools, he claimed that ” few subjects inspire more intellectual dishonesty and political puffery” than “school reform.” (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/05/AR2010090502817.html)
Cutting to the chase, why had American school reform produced such meagre results? Here’s Samuelson’s incisive analysis of the U.S. reform scene:
“Reforms have disappointed for two reasons. First, no one has yet discovered transformative changes in curriculum or pedagogy, especially for inner-city schools, that are (in business lingo) “scalable” — easily transferable to other schools, where they would predictably produce achievement gains. Efforts in New York and the District to raise educational standards involve contentious and precarious school-by-school campaigns to purge “ineffective” teachers and principals. Charter schools might break this pattern, though there are grounds for skepticism. In 2009, the 4,700 charter schools enrolled about 3 percent of students and did not uniformly show achievement gains.
The larger cause of failure is almost unmentionable: shrunken student motivation. Students, after all, have to do the work. If they aren’t motivated, even capable teachers may fail.
Motivation comes from many sources: curiosity and ambition; parental expectations; the desire to get into a “good” college; inspiring or intimidating teachers; peer pressure. The unstated assumption of much school “reform” is that if students aren’t motivated, it’s mainly the fault of schools and teachers. The reality is that, as high schools have become more inclusive (in 1950, 40 percent of 17-year-olds had dropped out, compared with about 25 percent today) and adolescent culture has strengthened, the authority of teachers and schools has eroded. That applies more to high schools than to elementary schools, helping explain why early achievement gains evaporate.
Motivation is weak because more students (of all races and economic classes, let it be added) don’t like school, don’t work hard and don’t do well. In a 2008 survey of public high school teachers, 21 percent judged student absenteeism a serious problem; 29 percent cited “student apathy.” The goal of expanding “access” — giving more students more years of schooling — tends to lower educational standards… ( according to prominent U.S. college and university officials )
Against these realities, school “reform” rhetoric is blissfully evasive. It is often an exercise in extravagant expectations. Even if George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind program had been phenomenally successful (it wasn’t), many thousands of children would have been left behind. Now Duncan routinely urges “a great teacher” in every classroom. That would be about 3.7 million “great” teachers — a feat akin to having every college football team composed of all-Americans. With this sort of intellectual rigor, what school “reform” promises is more disillusion.”
Samuelson’s persuasive critique packs some powerful lessons for Canadian education reformers of all stripes. His two key points are particularly telling. Surveying Canadian reform projects, how many can we identify that are “scalable” or transferable on a larger scale? And where are the gains we expected and sought in “student motivation”? What good are all these advances, if students simply won’t do the work and get rewarded anyway?
What are the lessons for Canadian school reformers? Replicating American education reform initiatives may not lead us to nirvana. How much of Samuelson’s analysis applies to Canadian education reform? If we are so different, where are the results?
The teachers, the admin, the support staff, to a large extent the parents, and certainly the students are completely and totally blameless in this environment. 100% of the blame, (not 99% 100%) of the blame falls on the politicians and business leaders that tolerate the levels of poverty that they do. Canada is only in good shpe vis a vis the USA because we refuse to accept American levels of poverty.
The white and Asian population of the USA is on par with Europe in OECD, PISA TIMMS etc but when the scores of black and hispanic students are factored in they drop to #19. Guess who is poor?
Since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are prepared to do anything serious about poverty, witness the health care and Bush tax cuts debates and the outrageous military spending, then nothing significant will happen to improve education. The education budget is being shot at the Taliban in Afganistan.
Everyone knows the system is broken but since nobody is prepared to do what it takes to fix poverty, the teacher bashing and the scapegoating will continue.
America actually spends more per capita than many nations on education but the spending is perversly in reverse order to where it is needed. Wealthy suburbs often receive 10X the budget or poor boards be they urban or rural. There is also a profound difference in education results north and south of the Mason-Dixon line. It seems in America that the more conservative the state, the worse its education results are. The more liberal a state is, the better its results will be.
Let the show trials begin.
This a hard one for me to answer, but I will make an observation. My niece just started grade Primary this fall. There she is , a perfect little girl, so cute, bright eyed, smart as a whip, ready to begin this learning process. She is already saying “it’s boring”.
Five year-olds are pretty honest people. I don’t think she is saying this because because all the other kids are saying it, I think she is bored. So, why is she bored? Is it the long bus ride in her rural area? Is it that she has already spent lots of time playing fast, young brain friendly computer games and school is too slow? Her school actually has good test score results, so I’m thinking they are doing something right.
I don’t know how to answer your questions on school reform, but I think it’s a bad sign when a smart little girl starts out saying she’s bored.
It is not the schools job to entertain it is their job to educate as best they can. Sometimes these two factors are congruent, sometimes they are not.
Children and young adults must learn postponed gratification. Life is not constant entertainment. Good to learn that early.
“Children and young adults must learn postponed gratification. Life is not constant entertainment. Good to learn that early.”
I had a good chuckle when I read Doug’s comments. It is a common excuse that is used to deflect away on the causes of students’ boredom, hatred, and lack of motivation.
Doug your solution always rests on external factors, and never on the factors that the education system has control of. Factors such as curriculum and instructional methods, should be part of school reform debate, long with the use of the web and other devices / software that would help children to reach their potential.
The most recent example, is my child’s grade 10 math teacher, who has elected to throw out the math text book, that he deems even he himself cannot understand the methods being used. And his degree is in math. My child came home all excited, and relieved that math will be taught in the same manner as I have taught her at home, using simple language and lots of examples and lots of work sheet practice. So unlike the present day math textbooks, and instruction. If I was a betting person, I would lay odds, that this particular class will raise their achievement rates, compared to other math classes that are using the math textbook. What is important, is why my child said to me, and I have not heard these words for a very long time, and a first in math. “Mom, he is not at all boring, and he makes math so easy to understand. I can’t wait until the next math class.”
She also used the word fun quite a few times. There is no reason why teachers cannot be entertaining while educating their students. There is no reason, why schools should not become fun places to go, to get away from the reality of their lives, that may or may not be fun places to be in. One way of motivating students, by making schools fun places to be in.
Peggy describe her niece as being bored, and I could describe my oldest being bored throughout her school years. With my youngest, the one with the LD problems, she learned to hate school early on, and I blamed this entirely on the public education system. A system that moves at a snail pace when children are experiencing learning problems. The children soon learn, and think that they are too stupid for school or go the other direction, developing a hatred for school.
Back to the topic re: Canadian education reform. What qualifies as “education reform” these days?
The way I see it the reform movement to education in Canada sputters along, lying low, every once in a while run a press release, offer all sorts of advice but as a nation education reform still hasn’t gotten off the ground.
It’s also been politicized so much that the existing organizations championing reform end up preaching to the converted instead of growing their reform base to any great degree that it can challenge the status quo and governments who support that status quo.
It would also help if Canada had a champion for school reform like Bill Gates is for the USA.
Perhaps a federal initiative and statement of purpose re: commitment to reform may be necessary. It needs a swift kick and much coordination to get back on the rails.
On reform, I read an interesting article where parent can hold great sway in school reform.
“A historic policy shift in education is poised to put power in parents’ hands. Experts, academics, and policy wonks have been talking about “education reform” since the first teacher wrote an A on the blackboard, but the current uprising didn’t catch fire until 2006, when the Los Angeles Parents Union founded Parent Revolution. Parent Revolution has produced wave after wave of grassroots campaigns that pushed through legislation first in Los Angeles and then in California, inspiring initiatives in other states and recently spreading to other countries, in only two years.”
A reform, to occur in Canada, parents have to become more active, force the public education system to start dealing with parents.
“Finally, districts have to actually deal with parents instead of putting them on meaningless PTA/ELAC/CLAC committees, which have tons of acronyms but no actual power,” says Gabe Rose, a spokesperson for Parent Revolution. “Which is their preferred method for dealing with noisy parents.”
http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/parental-power/parent-revolution.gs?content=3016&cpn=20100916weeklysend
“One might argue that a lot of our public schools are doing a fine job of educating our children as things stand. I don’t disagree. Long ago as it was, I had an excellent public school education with first-rate teachers; and next year, my husband and I plan to send our son to the public school on our street, which by all accounts offers a wonderful program and environment. The problem is that not every family happens to live in the cachement area of a good school — or a school that’s a good fit for the family’s children. It’s not fair to confine those kids to a lousy education because of their address. Let them choose the best spot for their learning.
And give parents a concrete way to make a change when a school is failing its children.”
National Post
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/09/marni-soupcoff-a-trigger-for-improving-public-education/#ixzz0zo3icZdn
Perhaps, and it really should be that Canada should have their own parent revolution, in the form of a trigger called school reform.
Drawing comparisons between American and Canadian public education can lead to mini-explosions within the Ontario education establishment. Our friends at the Society for Quality Education correctly predicted that the new film, Waiting for Superman, would provoke a reflex reaction here in Canada.
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/if-they-could-just-get-some-kryptonite/
Doretta Wilson was very prophetic. In yesterday’s Toronto Star, Dr. Jane Gaskell, former OISE Dean of Education, blew a gasket, denouncing the movie, the Gates Foundation, and all those who might think its lessons apply in Canada.
See Dr. Gaskell’s response for yourself:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/861772–education-movie-points-the-wrong-way-for-change
I couldn’t resist responding with this Comment, posted on The Toronto Star web blog:
“Waiting for Superman is succeeding in sparking a reaction. It also seems to have hit a nerve at OISE. The tone of the reaction, however, suggests that the academic division of fortress education takes itself very seriously. Instead of fairly evaluating the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s projects, we are treated, once again, to a defensive response casting aspersions on their motives.
Their Small Schools and Teacher Quality initiatives warrant a more serious, objective assessment. If up to 33% of student learning is determined by teacher effectiveness, why is it never on the agenda?
For 400 years the American governments federal, state and local could care less about the achievement levels of black and later hispanic students. They could also care less about poor whites in Appalachia and the south and their Aboriginal population.
Suddenly the world has changed. There are few jobs for those classically on the bottom, in short – the poor. Modern economic analysis from the OECD and others says, the society that educates ALL of their citizens to a high level will be the high value added, high productivity high standard of living society.
Nations like Finland ecognized this 35 years ago and revamped their economy and education systems from a lumberjack economy to a Nokia economy. Their high level education system based on social-democratic, “do not sort people or stream people or test people – educate everyone” has paid off. The USA has no cooperative ethos. Their ethos is competition. In competition there are failures. Society can no longer be built on failures.
The competition ethos must be replaced by a cooperative ethos where we all pull on the same end of the rope to create high achievement. Scapegoating teachers or unions or bureaucrats takes us exactly nowhere.
Excellence is simply not based on “successful teaching strategies” it is based on the mitigation of poverty.
Great response Paul and dead-on.
Ontario education needs more than a mini-explosion and a few blown gaskets to move the status-quo off their duffs and into the sun and reality that too many kids aren’t being educated despite the glut of cash being sucked into the black hole that is public education.
Excellence? What excellence?
Are we saying that non-poor canadian children are well educated on average?
In my opinion when the bar for the grade 9 math test is to a grade 6 or at most grade 7 level, we are talking about barely mediocre.
In my opinion when students admitted to colleges and universities need remedial courses in English and Math we are talking about barely mediocre.
When we don’t worry that students are not able to read before the end of grade 3 and we do nothing about it, then using the word excellence is just a fluff and demagogy.
This is the level of excellence that I, as a university lecturer, am used to seeing the current system achieving on a daily basis: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/01/14/nl-students-dont-know-geography-115.html
Fluff and demagogy – unfortunately, that’s putting it politely.
But “standards” and standardized testing are not panacea, cure-alls, or all-in-one remedies… They’re limited tools which in turn can actually limit learning. While these tools are, in theory, a good idea, they can very, very easily take on too much importance since they offer raw numbers to a society that believes it thrives on such data… This importance can, in turn very, very easily transform itself into poorer teaching, lower-lever learning, and a list of other well-established and well-demonstrated consequences.
Dear Parent,
Whether you like it or not, no nation on this Earth has a better education system than Canada, save Finland and depending how you measure it Korea.
BTW Michelle Rhee, the Time Magazine poster lady for education reform is about to be fired by the presumptive Mayor of Washington DC.
Just a reminder concerned parent. Canada’s 15 year old readers (chosen because for many jurisdictions you can quit school at age 16) are the best in the entire world except Finland. The Finland margin over Canada is almost statistically insignificant.
You need to brace yourself for this. Nobody on Earth has a better education system than this one.
Can it be improved? Yes it can but the wealthy and the middle class are pretty much maxed out and spending more time and effort there will not yield a good cost-benefit ratio. The growth area for Canadians is the poor, the Aboriginals, the recent immigrants, etc. A big improvement in that area will make us the clear and undisputed world leader in education. ALL of our increased efforts should be focused on the bottom 20% of students for maximum improvement.
Of course, deciding which is the best education system depends on the MEASURES used. If we are to gauge the quality of an education system by its students’ ability to do well on a standardized test, then Canadian provinces’ systems are truly the gold standard. We train and drill our students to do well on standardized tests, and the result is a smashing success.
If other measures were used to gauge the quality of a system of education, however, the results might not be cause for celebration and self-congratulations… Are our students as good at thinking critically? At evaluating? At assessing? At imagining? At creating? This is the true test.
Doug, are you saying the bottom 20 % of students are mainly composed of low-income people???? Where does the 20 % of the student population that are composed of special-needs that crosses all income levels, and do not discriminate based on income, fit in. Should you not state that it is the bottom 40 % of students that one should concentrate on?
Why state that the wealthy and middle class are pretty much maxed out? Are you stating that the wealthy and middle class are no longer willing to pick up the education services that the public school is no longer willing to provide? Or putting it another way, the public education can no longer reduce the level of testing, where most will pass the testing, without the public becoming distrustful of words coming out of educrats stating that Canada has an excellent system.
Funny how you used growth, as if the child is the only factor that matters in achievement, when in Finland, what matter the most in the first six grades, is the ability to read, write and do basic numeracy with mastery. Finland children sneer at the international tests, commenting that they are far too easy, as the children in Canada who are well versed in reading, writing and numeracy. About 1/4 of the student population does well, leaving about 75 % with various levels in reading, writing and numeracy.
Excellent education system???? The only growth industry that I see, is in the remedial and tutoring industry, which really begs the question, what excellent education system?
We’re so good in Ontario in fact that our Premier has admitted that, um, unfortunately folks the goal his government set of 75% of Ontario students exceeding the provincial average is beyond our public system to achieve.
Guess that means lowering the bar…..again.
It’s Alberta that’s giving Canada its boost internationally, followed by Quebec. Ontario……pretty much not much to write home about – just check out this year’s EQAO scores yourself concerned parent because you’ll find that you’re not far off the mark with your comments.
One thing that would be helpful to the reform movement in this country is gearing the work of reform to younger parents under 40 to keep up the pressure and momentum that’s gaining steam in most provinces….except Ontario. Ontario’s years behind.
jtc, it should really be aimed at parents who have children in school system of K to 8. It is entering the system, where most if not all, trust the system, and more importantly lack the knowledge of what is and what is not important. For example reading problems that are observed at home, may be ignored for the time being at the school, and reading problems observed at the school, may be ignored by the parents, because they lack understanding and knowledge of reading.
I would say, through my own observations, once children reach high school, most parents have various degrees of mistrust of the education system, which does make it harder to reach this set of parents.
Being a veteran parent, the knowledge that I have presently, would have come in handy when my child entered into the system. I did not become savvy about it, until my child was in grade 6, where I went into overdrive to learn everything about the education system, that hinder or block access to my LD child. Prior to grade 6, I was content on providing information regarding my child’s LD problems to the school, because I still had trust in the system, that they knew what they were doing.
If anything, reform needs to directed at parents who have children in the primary and elementary grades, and not necessarily parents under the age of 40.
“it should really be aimed at parents who have children in school system of K to 8.”
Permit me to disagree with that statement Nancy. It makes all kinds of sense for parents to do their homework before their children enter the school system….any system of their choice.
If parents were more knowledgeable going IN and knew just what they could expect from, not just the public system but what other choices were available parents would not have to learn the hard way that there are other options or what their role is in all systems so they could choose accordingly.
Parents aren’t stupid and when it comes to choosing the right education for their child they should be educated and encouraged to delve deep into their options.
Also, given that there are groups out there like SQE and others providing solid information to help parents choose the trial by fire pattern within the public system wouldn’t happen.
The younger parents are who are aware of just how their statutory rights can help them within the public system the better.
Youth matters if reform is to gain the same footing in Canada as it is in the states where it gets passed down organizations, teacher groups etc.
Young teachers too should be exposed to the issues of reform sooner rather than later in their careers.
Nancy, SE is not evenly distributed by class status. Behavioural is skewed heavily towards the poor while gifted is skewed towards the affluent.
When LD used to be broken out into slow learners and learning disabled, the SL kids were almost all poor while the LD kids were almost all middle class. We mapped all of this at TBE.
Due to the outrage about this, they were just all lumped together under LD.
The HS population in Ontario used to be about 15% SES. It was HIGHLY skewed towards the poor although, of course there were people of all classes affected.
The information covers a wide breathe of knowledge, and often is the case parents do not start looking for information, until there is something wrong. Upon entry of school, schools often do not share information on the system itself, pass on knowledge on learning or even bother to inform parents that there is options.
You claim youth, or younger parents are aware of their rights, and I have to differ on that point. It depends on a parent’s experience going through the system, their knowledge base, and if they themselves had a rough go with education or a easy ride to graduation. Some parents are more knowledgeable than others, but often when parents assert their knowledge and used their rights, it creates fiction when the issues are not the same goals of the other parents or the school.
For example, using my own experience, I became known as the lone trouble maker, that dare to questioned the primary math curriculum, starting in 2001. I still have no use for the present day math curriculum, but it has improved a little since 2001. Some parents chided me for doing so, and it was parents who had children that were doing well with the math curriculum as it was. Other parents told me they felt the same way, but did not have the ability and skills to argue with the staff, in fear of being look at as being stupid. Of course, the view of the parents’ council was in sync with the school’s view, that the board and the ministry know what is best for the students.
As for United States, it was thanks for the large lobby groups mainly composed of parents, that change the laws. In Canada, lobbying for changes in the education are over the place, each group doing their thing, and where there is groups such as P4E in Ontario, claiming they speak for all parents. SQE and other groups, are the lifeline for many parents, seeking solid information on many aspects of education, without claiming that they speak on the behalf of all parents. Yet, it is groups like SQE that should have the ear of the government, a seat at the government table, to speak about the issues that are facing parents and their children in the public education system. It would be nice to see SQE getting a phone call, to present their side on the issues, rather than P4E. It would be nice to see, more links for parents, on the net, that are organizations that would push for change.
On the Ontario education site, a link called Parent’s Advocacy for School.
As an advocacy consultant and a SEAC member I can cite two recent examples where an information exchange would be crucial. The first event concerns a request made to me to assist parents involved in alternative schools of the Toronto District School Board. Parents with children who have special needs were told by alternative schools that if they enrolled their children they would not be able to receive special education resources. We approached the chair of the school trustees and the superintendent of special education and we told them that this was discriminatory. Ultimately, a policy was put into effect which remedied this situation and now children with special needs and children attending French immersion with similar difficulties will be entitled to get the services they require. This is a prime example of data to share through the Special Education Information Exchange.
In a recent meeting of SEAC (Spring, 2010) a motion was passed which endorsed a recommendation to create a board position for a parent advocate/consultant. The motion was presented to the board of trustees and was passed. However, interested parties had no way to learn that this strategic motion was being sent on to the board. People who might have urged their elected officials (trustees) to vote for this motion could not do so because they were uninformed. It might not have passed, and interested parties would have learned, after-the-fact, that they may have changed the course of things if they presented their input to the trustees. People need to be informed! ”
http://www.parentsadvocacy.com/parentsadvocacy/spec-ed
As one can see, information is still hard to come by, especially information that can influence policy changes.
Many of the links, including the above link, are links that are approved by the ministry. SQE and other groups are not approve. As for the above Parent’s Advocacy for School, if one want to avail of the information, one has to buy a membership, where as SQE and many other education organizations, the bulk of the information is free to view, and download.
Information is power, and one of the keys to school reform, is the free sharing of information.
“
The “reform” potential and parameters in the United States and Canada are simply not comparable for multifarious reasons, but one salient factor outweighs all others: the extremely low participation and engagement rate of citizens of all political stripes, ages and occupations from public education issues in Canada, compared to the same engagement in the United States.
Since I have family in the U.S, I have frequent opportunities to observe this huge discrepancy first-hand. About 15 years ago I started noticing the level of coverage of education issues of all sorts in the U.S. media, even the small community papers. Small city and even village newspapers (on a par with the Guelph Mercury or, even smaller, the Dundas Star-Register) have multiple education stories in every issue. Some feel-good stories about local children in a music competition, or tree-planting projects in the state park, others profiling student academic accomplishments, parent groups’ initiatives, politician’s views — no matter how small the paper, there would be several stories at least directly related to local schools (not including sports, which I didn’t count). Major American journals cover education issues in depth: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal — I could name dozens. As the Woodstock blogger, The Education Reporter, remarked, no Canadian newspaper can have an “education reporter” on staff — it may have a reporter with a special interest in education, but that reporter will have multiple other reporting areas. Coverage is sparse, often ill-informed (because the reporter lacks background), and obviously doesn’t sell papers. If readers demanded more, there would be more.
Another indicator is online activity. Paul recently appended to another thread that this blog is becoming the go-to site for discussion of Canadian educational issues. I say hurrah, and three thumbs up! But why is this the first or only blog devoted to serious analysis of Canadian education issues? In the U.S. you don’t find ten times as many — as would be expected from our population differences — but hundreds of times as many. Where are the Canadian blogs that can even begin to compare in depth and quality of analysis, breadth of commentary, quality and level of knowledge of responders, spectrum of political and ideological views, to the hundreds of American blogs typified by such diverse sites as d-ed reckoning, Core Knowledge, Eduwonkette (now on hiatus), Teaching in the 408, Education for the Aughts, Sherman Dorn, Rick Hess Straight Up, Gotham Schools, Kitchen Table Math, Class Struggle, Miss Brave Teaches NYC, Out in Left Field? I could name a hundred more. We do not have this in Canada. It’s not out there.
Never mind the blogosphere…..what about much earlier forms of engagement, bulletin boards and listservs? A few Canadian listserves have flowered briefly — EDUCAN and Citizens for Education come to mind — but fizzled out after a couple of years, and had only a few hundred followers at their zenith. I first got engaged in education issues online in 1995 when I got connected to the Internet with Windows 3.1, and immediately found active listservs in the U.S.A (none here). One of the first two, devoted to education reform, has since lapsed when its moderator moved on, but the other, focused on instructional issues is still going great guns. Within two or three years I had found numerous fora devoted to issues like working with parents, teaching reading, mathematics instruction, cognitive science, interdisciplinary teaching, sharing resources, grade-specific concerns, special education issues, you name it, there are not just one or two, but literally THOUSANDS of fora with active participants. They are very active and have a high participation rate. Yet a country our size can not sustain even ONE.
The level of interest here is simply exponentially much lower. I asked the owner of a very successful private learning centre which gets excellent results for its clients if the parents were at all interested in the methods and the research behind what they do. Were they looking for validated curricula, proven teaching methods, etc.? His response surprised me. Practically nobody cares what they do or how they do it, they do care that their children are progressing, but are not interested in the details of how and why.
Another person, working with a group of parents of severely disabled children in efforts to develop programs to engage these students when they became adults, had several suggestions based on input from other countries where there had been success in this area. But, the parents did not, apparently, wish to actively involve themselves in such an initiative. They expect that “the government will do it.” I wish them good luck with that.
School “reform” will take a massive movement. There are a few outspoken and clearly dissatisfied people (like jtc and Nancy) and they may well know some others like themselves. But unless they can drum up tens of thousands like themselves, they have virtually no chance of launching a “school reform” movement in Canada, because the popular will is not there, and no amount of wishing will make it so.
This story from the UK media today struck a chord:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11331574
The whole article is worth a read, bearing in mind that the social class stratification is far worse in the UK (and US) than it is here. But this observation rang disturbingly true:
The writer was summarizing what parents of disadvantaged children told him:
These are the sorts of things the parents and teachers I spoke to told me they want to see happening in their school.
Let me tell you what they do not want. Choice. Politicians have been in love with it for years – who could possibly be against it?
But the regrettable truth is that it is simply not relevant to the most deprived children. Their parents want one decent school near where they live that can guarantee their child a place. That is it.
This is eerily similar to what I hear, also from the parents of the most disadvantaged children. They do not want “choice” of some other school, they want their neighbourhood school to serve their child well. They are not interested in curriculum and research, they want their child to be happy and successful. Even if free transportation were given them to a private school or a “better” public school, they would turn it down. They want a good local school.
As a supporter of “choice” myself (I’d love to be able to “choose” to teach in a school that supported the latest proven research in reading and mathematics instruction), I find this disturbing, but offering people a solution other than the one they want is not going to lead anywhere.
At the end of the link that TDSB has supply, also rang a chord and leads to a solution to what TDSB, laments at the end of his post. “As a supporter of “choice” myself (I’d love to be able to “choose” to teach in a school that supported the latest proven research in reading and mathematics instruction), I find this disturbing, but offering people a solution other than the one they want is not going to lead anywhere.”
At the end of the article, titled, “What’s Wrong With Our Schools?”:
“That is not to say they will not provide a decent education. Indeed, they may be very good schools. But their critics fear they will siphon money out of the system and, once again, entrench the middle-class advantage.
Which leaves only one alternative: a commitment of resources and political will on a scale we have never seen before to turn all our state schools into the equivalent of a Phoenix or Mossbourne Academy. All of them.
Why should a single child be denied the chance of achieving his or her potential?”
I certainly would like to see all public schools turned into the schools that are described in the article. Good schools no matter the neighbourhood. It certainly would get rid of major inequities that are found in our schools, and creating a responsive school environment based on the local population and their needs, by giving each school the freedom and funding to do so.
“So I went to many more state schools and asked their heads what they wanted and they all told me exactly the same thing. They want freedom. All of them.
Yes of course they would like more money too, but mostly what they wanted was the ability to run the school the way they chose to run it.
If you couple that freedom with a bit more cash and the best head teacher money can buy, then you end up with something like Mossbourne Academy, proud flagship of the academy movement.”
The above is the final solution, but until there is political will and a full understanding among all stakeholders, choice is in my eyes, a reaction to the inequities within the present day education system. It is probably why charter schools growth in the United States is the number one choice for low-income areas. Yet, I too believe that in the end, parents no matter what level of income, would prefer a good school in their neighbourhood.
“But the regrettable truth is that it is simply not relevant to the most deprived children. Their parents want one decent school near where they live that can guarantee their child a place. That is it. ”
As TDSB has stated, “They do not want “choice” of some other school, they want their neighbourhood school to serve their child well. They are not interested in curriculum and research, they want their child to be happy and successful. Even if free transportation were given them to a private school or a “better” public school, they would turn it down. They want a good local school. ”
In the end, I believe most parents desire a good local school, that does not depend on where one lives, but rather a school that has the freedom to make changes that will help their students to become successful, and to open as many doors as possible for their futures. But until there is political will, the future of public education will be driven by choice, vouchers, charter schools, and other reforms that increases the inequities in our public education system.
You need to read the posts more carefully.
Paul is asking specifically about education reform and what we can or have learned.
I offered that educator reform needs to start with parents before they make their decision on how best to educate their children.
That’s my experience and my belief. We’re missing a huge target audience.
I also give parents more credit for having some smarts in being able to sift through the information. They do it now in most provinces and are able to account for and make those decisions.
Parents coming in to the public system are MUCH more aware of their place in it than ever before thanks to the many groups and organizations out there that have sprung up over the last decade that have the parents’ interests (and their children) at heart.
TDSB is correct that “The level of interest here is simply exponentially much lower.”
It’s also clear to me that the organizations that do exist don’t have the kind of money necessary to do a major blitz or launch their information in the same way the unions and/or existing school boards do.
However unlike TDSB I believe that if the public system is going to drag its heels at improving then choice is the only alternative.
Parents will to wait for the public system to improve will be disappointed and will have to wait decades for that to happen.
In Washington DC the Time Magazine poster woman for right wing Michelle Rhee is about to be fired as Chancellor of DC schools since her political sponcer Mayor Fenty just lost his party’s primary for mayor due to his support of Rhee.
The high water mark of reform has already been seen. The real monster in this drama is Bill Gates who stands to make billions from the computerization of national standardized tests, and national data collecting on education.
Time to start rewriting the history books in Oceania.
I think this is a great discussion. Each of these discussions has weaved in and out of the topic at hand. This could happen at any meeting anywhere, whether it’s in a conference room at a 1.5 million dollar new office space (you know what I mean, Paul) or at the family dinner table, or on an on-line blog. The fact is, as far as reform goes, nothing major is going to change until people are talking about education. I think people are finally starting to talk more and more, and although the numbers are small and there are fewer blogs in Canada than in the States, the fact remains that we are now blogging and talking!!
I relate to Nancy the most on here, I think we’ve walked down some of the same roads with our children’s educations. Speaking up is not fun, the staff do not appreciate the passionate parents and the other parents become a bit leary as well. Speaking up takes courage and alot of people won’t do it, so it gets left to the brave or crazy.(and the new parents really have no idea what they are getting in to when they send their first one off to school. It takes time to learn that the system is huge, the program was set well before your child showed up and they mostly want your child as a number in a seat for their staff numbers, not because they are excited to offer your child a top of the line education) I’d like to think that I somehow contributed to reform just from the pressure I have created in my own neighborhood. It’s probably very small, but maybe it has had some small ripple effects. I learned that change is not going to come from talking to the prinicpal in the school. You have to go higher than that and keep hammering away the message to those who are holding the pot of money that you want the money spent on your child’s classroom.
So, in a nutshell, I’m saying the crazy parents are the key to education reform! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Waiting for Superman continues to spark intense debate over the state of American public education.
Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine (September 19, 2010) was the “Education Issue” and it featured a Q&A with U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In the piece, “The School of Hard Drives,” Duncan certainly shoots from the lip!
When asked about the film Waiting for Superman, he responded that he shares the new film’s “sense of urgency” about the state of public education. “We have parents who know their child is getting a sub-par education. That is devastating to them and ultimately it’s devastating to our country.”
Attending the Ontario Education Summit may well have influenced his thinking. On the question of America’s slipping standards, he applauds Canada’s college graduation rate ( third best in the world, after South Korea and Japan)
Reading his response to Waiting for Superman, I was struck by the “overblown” reform rhetoric. So was a critical commentator in The New Yorker.
I would beg to differ on the interview of Duncan. His method, was to stay on topic, and to bring out the messages of parents, who have not done well with the public education system.
His background indicates, that he has deep knowledge on the kind of things relating to families and their children, receiving a public education in the inner city.
“His late father was a professor at the University of Chicago and his mother has run a South Side tutoring program for inner-city children since 1961. As a student in Chicago, Duncan spent afternoons in his mother’s tutoring program and also worked there during a year off from college. He credits this experience with shaping his understanding of the challenges of urban education.”
http://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/duncan.html
Per Doug: “BTW Michelle Rhee, the Time Magazine poster lady for education reform is about to be fired by the presumptive Mayor of Washington DC.”
To find out why read School for Thought on David Frum’s article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Suffer+poor+children/3544027/story.html
Rhee tried to get some accountability in the DC school system. The unions mobilized and spent $1 million to defeat the politician who hired her.
Frum said,
“More probably, the teachers’ unions have sent a message to every urban Democrat in the United States: Your first priority is to protect our jobs, all of our jobs, whether we perform competently or not. If you instead put children and learners first, we will crush you.”
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog
TDSB said, “But the regrettable truth is that it is simply not relevant to the most deprived children. Their parents want one decent school near where they live that can guarantee their child a place. That is it.”
AMEN, TDSB, the little glitch in the details is HOW to get the decent school. I agree, they think the government will just snap their fingers and will it to happen. You know that can never happen under the present circumstances.
They want that one little school to be a public school. We need to focus our discussion 100% on public education since private education is deeply unpopular.
Hope you all saw Oprah today. She discussed this very thing and the movie “Waiting for Superman.” I thought of you all as I watched. Feeling proud to be involved in talking about this.
It features the 3 Stooges of education reform, Gates, Rhee and G.Canada. They are soon to be the 2 Stooges after Rhee resigns/gets fired.
Charter schools ARE public schools. Waiting for Superman was featured on Oprah today. Lookout.
Hey Doug, it is all over the U.S. network stations, that Rhee’s new boss, is backing down, and is now willing to work with her. Oprah’s show of today, made all the reporters run to him, and start asking questions.
Rhee is right, parents should not have to put up with mediocrity, no matter where one is living in the United States. Perhaps this is the edge that is needed, to start a parent revolution throughout the world, since people are talking about the show all over the net, and has gone international in scope. And it is the parents that are doing the talking.
By the way, calling people names does not enhance conversation. Remaining civil, is the key to open dialogue, just like the idea that teachers sharing their ideas, expertise among the teachers they are working with, to improve achievement among students.
Can we say, thanks to Oprah, the ultimate reformer of anything, the “you know what” has hit the fan?
http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Waiting-For-Superman-The-Movie-That-Can-Transform-Americas-Schools_2
If the most powerful and influential woman in American can cause book sales to soar, then watch out.
The new mayor of Washington would be a fool to keep her and allow her to continue to destroy the Washington DC school system.
She is an idiot, she knows next to nothing about education, she alienates everybody she meets.
Education research clearly shows, if there is not significant “teacher buy in” then any reform is doomed to failure.
If the players don’t like or believe in the coach they will not play for him/her. The teachers (not the unions, the teachers) can’t stand the sight of her.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/why-michelle-rhees-education-brand-failed-in-dc/63014/
“Outside of Washington, if you listen closely, you’ll hear the whispering of teachers’ union leaders to Democratic officeholders, warning them that they could share Fenty’s fate if they get too far out of line. Or, as New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein put it to me: “The vote on Fenty will be opportunistically misused by the opponents of real school reform.” ”
[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2019395,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar]
or as David Frum puts it more succinctly:
“More probably, the teachers’ unions have sent a message to every urban Democrat in the United States: Your first priority is to protect our jobs, all of our jobs, whether we perform competently or not. If you instead put children and learners first, we will crush you.“
[http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Suffer+poor+children/3544027/story.html]
I was in Washington recently. The basic line in the black community was this, “Rhee is firing black teachers we need to make room for her white friends from Teach for America” The TFA people have no long term committment and usually leave after 1-2 years. Washington DC has the highest black % of any American city. Not a smart policy.
Mike Petrilli has some trenchant insights into both Waiting for Superman and the whole question of “reform” here:
http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2010/09/cracking-the-code-or-ed-reformers-on-crack/
The only idiots are the people who’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the tired old status-quo messages from the usual suspects and their parent puppies.
Education reform through choice is knocking at our door, just as it is in the USA – the government that embraces it smartly and gives educators choice the sooner we’ll be out of the mire of mediocrity.
The public will always have the last word.
I can hardly believe that Mike wrote that, there is so much common sense involved. I have exchanged “views” with him for a long time.
I sure hope the public has the last word. They hate privatization.
If a proper survey was done in Canada, asking questions on what parents like or dislike about public school, one would probably find about 60 % of parents dislike a great deal about the public education that their children are receiving. But at the end, most would check off the last question, which is better for their child, public or private, and choose public. Another question prior to it, if you could choose which system would your child go to, the 60 % would choose private or other, but not public.
“You’ll find you’re not alone in believing there are things in the public schools that are dreadfully wrong. As Arne Duncan said about the film, “Nobody wants to call a baby ugly. This movie is like calling the baby ugly. It’s about confronting brutal truths.”
It was enlightening to hear Duncan saying he was distressed by unions taking huge amounts of dues not to develop better teachers, but to be a huge lobbying network often on the wrong side of the education issues.
There’s nothing inconvenient about that truth. ”
It is time to confront the ugly truths about the public education system, and it includes the teachers’ unions, who become uncomfortable, when people question their favourite line, “This is the best interest of the children.”, or some line like it. One hears it the most when a strike is brewing, but just as often, when the ministry or the board, decides to do something different, the union brass is against it.
“Guggenheim said he made the film for those parents who need something to cut through the blob of all the education issues that never seem to get resolved.
I think this film challenges all those who always spin out their arguments about what we can’t do in schools rather than getting busy doing what can be done.
Guggenheim quotes Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the Washington, D.C., Public Schools, who says, “The public schools are built for the harmony of adults.”
He thinks this film will make that harmony uncomfortable and direct attention to schools serving the interests of kids.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20100921_Education_s__Inconvenient_Truth__.html
The Americans do have a severe problem because they underfund their inner city and poor schools and also allow levels of poverty that no other western nation allows.
We in Canada simply do not have similar problems because:
1) We have more advanced social programs.
2) We finance our schools more evenly
We don’t need any advice from Americans who are light years behind us.
“We don’t need any advice from Americans who are light years behind us.”
Ah… that’s the real reason isn’t it. Those darned Americans. Too bad we didn’t take their advice on whole language, constructivism, fuzzy math, and just about every other failed fad that we learned from THEM. r..i..g..h..t.
Hey Doug, in some ways Americans are light years ahead of Canada, concerning the treatment of their citizens, including parents within the education system, addressing their concerns.
“I have a good friend who for the last six years has been teaching at a small rural school. She recently told me that her school district was advised that they must charge fees according to the average income of the families in the area. Those areas where the parents are more wealthy are charged higher school fees, while the areas where the families have less are charged less. How is this okay? How can one child’s education cost more than another within the same district? Are rich kids entitled to a better level of learning, because their parents have the money to afford the so-called “resources” the school is charging for? Is it any wonder more and more parents are turning to home schooling. At least then you know what you’re paying for.”
The above passage, is parent who happens to be a teacher.
http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/motherload/archive/2010/09/08/school-fee-frustration.aspx
What about the complaint of parents, making decisions based on their political ideology, rather than the best interests of children.
“Radio Host Tyler Glen of Star-FM in Brandon, Manitoba spoke to Millett Friday morning.
Millett, who ran as a candidate for the Green Party in the last election, has faced suggestions that his personal views were responsible for the decision. But he says there were two reasons for his decision; parent’s complaints and that the anthem disrupted students in the morning.
“It’s true that we have students, that for various reasons, are not allowed to sing the national anthem (for) whatever reasons, religion, beliefs, values,” he told the radio station.
“The difficulty we were having were that children we having physical reactions to the anthem. They would scrunch up their face, put their fingers in their ears, bend down and get on the floor because they felt they were doing something they weren’t allowed to do,” he added.
Millett also said that because his school is rural, late buses in the winter meant that students would arrive during the playing of the anthem, which was “chaotic.”
But he said that the anthem has not been completely cancelled, and is still played at monthly assemblies.”
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20090130/anthem_controversy_090130/
More on the above, most parents would question the school and their staff, for allowing such behaviour in their classrooms.
I shall repeat his main reason for cancelling ‘O’Canada’.
“The difficulty we were having were that children we having physical reactions to the anthem. They would scrunch up their face, put their fingers in their ears, bend down and get on the floor because they felt they were doing something they weren’t allowed to do,” he added. ”
A lot of parents are tired of the spin that is in the education system. As in the many articles on Waiting For Superman, parents do not want spin on what and why it cannot be done. Parents want more based on reality, on the things that can be done.
For your reading, the latest spin in EQAO testing. ”
The EQAO is an independent agency funded by the province that designs, distributes and assesses math, reading and writing tests annually for Grades 3, 6 and 9.
The agency says it has found blatant cheating at some of the 10 schools and glaring irregularities at others.”
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/21/ontario-schools-standardized-testing-eqao.html#ixzz10GMlcEj7
“Ever since the tests were first introduced in 2001, the EQAO has faced similar issues when it comes to how the test is administered. Teachers, principals and one school superintendent have all been suspended in the past for what the agency has deemed to be irregularities or cheating.”
Now here comes the spin, from the president of a teachers’ union. “The EQAO creates a situation where the [Education] Ministry puts pressure on school boards, school boards put pressure on principals, and principals, in turn, put pressure on teachers,” said Ryan. “So, there is an incredible climate of pressure put on the teachers.”
What is omitted the pressure does not stopped at the teachers, the teachers turn around and direct pressure at their students. That said, why can a teacher be fire for this or be suspended, yet the top union brass, will fight tooth and nail on teacher accountability toward students?
Even Kidder was contacted, and she really does take the cake on spin. The spin, implying that teachers may feel pressure to cheat, “But she said she has some sympathy for teachers who must administer the one-size-fits-all test, especially those at schools with large numbers of students with learning difficulties or for whom English is a second language.”
Nice spin, blame it on certain groups of students, rather than talk about the real issue, the missing parts of language that is rarely taught in our public schools, such as reading fluency, grammar or spelling rules. You know the basics needed to expressed oneself in writing and to understand what one has just read.
Exactly Doretta. Parents and educational communities in Canada are less and less swayed by the spin and myths that the status quo supporters would like us to believe.
In fact, it’s unfortunate that even among Canadian provinces Ontario lags behind in opening up minds and governments to more parental choice and higher standards.
Testing lads to cheating but that is hardly its primary crime. It leads directly to students dropping out of school as has been proven atthe U of Texas (Austin). It also narrows the curriculum. Teacher take time away from those things which are not tested and add time to those things that are tested. This kills the arts, humanities, etc.
It also plays no role whatsoever in school improvement. NCLB attempted to “test and punish” for a decade with no improvement in the NAEP.
James Carvillle famously told Clinton “It is the economy stupid.”
In education “it is the poverty stupid”. The Coleman report famously pointed out that 90% of education difference was actually class difference. Yes we can all work on the 10% of education results that are actually influenced by what happens “AT SCHOOL” but inless and until poverty is mitigated, the seeds will land primarily on stones.
Now tell me how standard testing in Canada, leads to dropping out, when the tests do not count as part of the final grade, nor do the results of standard testing, teachers are not blame no matter how poorly the students did. Most kids pick this up quite early, and it is the parents who are urging their kids to do well.
What difference does it make, if the test do not count for the students? How does that lead to kids dropping out? Or is the general mandate, of using the results, to guide the changes to improve achievement, is just that – more spin for parents. How does the mandate lead to kids dropping out?
Just in from the Philadelphia Daily News (September 21, 2010):
Education’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’?
By DOM GIORDANO
ARE WE on the cusp of a major awakening that could push public schools to the reform they so badly need? Is there a film that could crystallize all the angst over public schools and smash through the status quo?
The answers are “yes” and “maybe.” John Heilemann, writing in New York magazine, says, “A confluence of factors – a grassroots outcry for better schools, a cadre of determined reformers, a newly demanding and parlous economy, and a president willing to challenge his party’s hoariest shibboleths and most potent allies has created what Secretary of Education Arne Duncan calls ‘a perfect storm.’ ”
Heilemann believes, as do I, that the film “Waiting for Superman” may be the catalyst that moves the needle toward reform.”
Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/103399414.html#ixzz10IrvfeEx
Comment:
What a marked contrast compared to the defensive reaction of Dr. Jane Gaskell in The Toronto Star.
Perhaps we do inhabit different educational universes.
No kidding Paul. It’s the difference between moving toward better educating kids and Ontario where keeping people employed is the priority in our education system.
Doug’s all over the blogs grasping at political straws and spinning myths. Not going to work this time.
Nancy I have seen it with my own eyes. I taught a Regent Park girl Jamilla, who was trying very hard in school, she failed the Grade 10 literacy test once. She tried a year later and barely failed again. The day she got the second result she went to the school office and dropped out. The next time I saw her she was pushing a stroller.
Failing kids on the tests is highly demoralizing to them and leads DIRECTLY to them dropping out, teachers and principals from low scoring schools experience the same level of demoralization and ask for a transfer to a higher scoring school or after a few years of no improvement just start going through the motions.
People who are not teachers really just do not know what they are talking about in education. It all looks so easy from the outside. Just try it. Most would not make it to Christmas. Huge numbers quit before 5 years are up saying it is just too hard.
First of all, we are talking about two different countries, #2 in the entire world and #19 in the world. Dunan even lauded McGuinty’s ELP when he was here.
We have absolute zero to learn from the Americans with the worst system in the developed world.
Second, they can try all the reform they want, it will not work and will not budge the needle even a little bit because they allow too much poverty for ANY system to succeed.
The charter schools across America are no better than public schools (CREDO Stanford) and you can hold all the lotteries you want, eventually you have to educate ALL of the children not those highly motivated enough to join a lottery.
Charters = failure
Vouchers = can’t pass a referendum anywhere
Testing = a proven failure see NAEP results
Teacher Testing = what a joke, another failure tried many times
Mayoral Control = phony results now being exposed in New York
National standards = has potential but not when coupled with national testing
Privatization = nobody wants it.
Michelle Rhee = very unpopular, either wings clipped or on the way out.
Joel Klein = a lier who is being exposed
NCLB = very unpopular proven failure
A solution that works=
1) mitigate poverty
2) massive class size reductions
3) much bigger ELP
4) more support staff
5) Finland style teacher prep
The answers are clear but conservative cannot accept them because they do not fit conservative ideology.
Just try it? One of the many parents that are doing it. In the trade it is called re-teaching at home and for others they call it home schooling after school. Average 3 hours 5 days a week, on the weekend – depending on what was the real homework, another 8 hours or so. On some nights, my child did not get into bed until 11:00 at night, and I on the other hand, stay up, combing the net for new information, often on the teacher sites. Learn a lot since 2001, especially the fallout that a child goes through – the self-esteem issues, the negative thinking, the constant failures at school, anxiety ridden, the hatred for school and learning, the temper tantrums, and the constant stress dealing with the school’s inability in giving her the proper help.
I had to do all the above to save my child from dropping out, which was secondary to seeing my child dealing with the psychological harm being done to her. I had to do all this, because she did not received the proper instruction in reading, math, and as for her writing, 5-alarm bells were ringing, but alas due to the teachers not knowing what to look for in learning problems in reading and writing, it was put down as being lazy or not focus enough or other reasons.
Doug, Jamilla’s problems did not start as a teenager, it started back in the primary grades, just like my child, where the school ignored her problems, as well as the board staff. If I left it to the school, she would be in the same place as Jamilla. But she is not. In reality, she is a honor student, who happens to have LD. She has come a long way since grade 3, where she was at grade 1 level, except for reading, which was apparently at grade 3. By the way, I have my doubts on that, since it is another battle being raged, where the board staff insists she is at grade level, and I insist she is two years behind. I am still waiting for a reading assessment to commence by the board, and still waiting after 1 1/2 years. It is not the school, because the staff at the school now believe that her main problem is in reading and it can be corrected. It is the board, who does not want to approve it, and I wonder why?
All the hard work paid off, where now I do very little for her. From time to time I will summarized her notes in English, and any other text that is hard for her to read. But this year, the use of software on her laptop, the electronic Franklin dictionary, I do hope to end writing her notes. These days I have the support of the school and the teachers where now I can concentrate on teaching her grammar, good note taking, and the usual things that will enhance her learning at school, and the teachers are doing what they should be doing, teaching, and if she runs into trouble, the good old fashioned technique of direct instruction, that is seldom used these days.
As for teachers being demoralized, what about the kids? One would think, the teachers might want to reflect on teaching methods, curriculum, and yes the quality of teaching training one gets in teachers’ college. As I have discovered, teachers’ sites on the net, are a wonderful resource, and quite a few sites are teachers who want to do their best, despite the difficulties. Very few of the sites, are Canadian. I wonder why?
By the way Doug, the studies that I have read on drop-outs do not point out directly that kids leave school, because of failing grades. The reason why, is that kids are not likely to admit to anyone that they left school, because of failing grades because it would tell the other person, that they are dumb and too stupid for school. According to the studies done in the LD population, the LD group is not about to admit that they left school because of failing grades, but rather they skirt around the issue, by stating I found something that I was very good at, and I don’t need school, or a variation of it.
On the Children of Code site – “First of all, in the case of reading, we’re talking about an artificial (to our organism) maze of confusions. And the confusions are frustratingly difficult to learn through for a lot of reasons. Children’s primary response to failure in reading, according to National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others, is to take it as an indication of something wrong with them, to blame themselves. So, they feel shame in relation to this confusion. (see “Shame Stories”)
Now, if they’ve got good oral language abilities and processing speed and other variables we could talk about at the neuro-substrate level, many of them will pop through that threshold of confusion and start to get positive experiences of reading that provide them with learning traction and helps them bootstrap themselves up into doing better.
Those that can’t learn their way through the confusion start to become self-conscious about it and the movement into self-consciousness diminishes their brains capacity to learn through the confusion. They ‘stutter up’ at both the processing and emotional levels and that leads to a downward spiral.
Dr. James Heckman: Well, is this confined only to children though? What about adult literacy programs?
David Boulton: No, I think it’s across the board. Unfortunately, when you get to adults, and we’ve interviewed a number of adults and talked to the presidents of of ProLiteracy and the National Center for Family Literacy and others, what we find is that one the biggest things working against them learning now is how they feel about it.
Dr. James Heckman: What do you mean?
David Boulton: It triggers so much shame.
Dr. James Heckman: Right, I understand. They’re afraid to admit that they’re illiterate.”
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/heckman.htm
The above interview passage, is under ability and behaviour. Cognitive science where the shame factor comes into play, every single time. I believe this, because I seen the same thing with my child, and I bet Doug’s Jamilla had to deal with the shame factor as well.
How does the shame factor start? Another passage, under the title, The Move Towards Evidence Based Educataion:
“David Boulton: Another great thing that intersects here is a movement happening in education trying to move it into becoming more evidence and science based and, in particular, to operate like or model the way medicine was transformed in the early twentieth century.
Dr. James Heckman: So, what form is that taking?
David Boulton: Well, it seems like there’s a big debate in this space between those that feel that the rigor of becoming evidence based and case based in determining what we’re doing is leading to less harm to the population of children as a whole because we’re reigning in all kinds of idiosyncratic teacher behavior.
On the other hand, we’ve got teachers who feel like they’re becoming robotic extensions of the impersonal political-educational machinery.”
Perhaps the public education system, should take a page from the advancements being made in cognitive science. At least it would put an end to the crazy education theories such as whole language to bed, but more importantly, put an end to the shame factor, and in turn, the drop-out rate.
What about cognitive science as the next education reform. It sure help me as a parent on the long nights of re-teaching, and my child became a learner, and she loves to learn. The only subject she only likes to learn, is in English, but that is understandable due to her LD.
Media reaction to Waiting for Superman in the United States has been”rapturous” and that too reflects the sense of panic and urgency Americans feel about the state of public education.
One of the most thoughtful reviews appeared in The Nation (September 23, 2010) and was written by Dana Goldstein, currently a Spencer Education Journalism Fellow at Columbia University,
After the Oprah Show and the “Hollywoodization” of education, it’s the first sign that Americans are still capable of serious analysis when it comes to their public schools. It’s a fair-minded essay and one that will likely bring a smile to the face of our own incessant Edu-Blogger, Doug Little.
GRADING WAITING FOR SUPERMAN
Dana Goldstein
The Nation, September 23, 2010
“Here’s what you see in Waiting for Superman, the new documentary that celebrates the charter school movement while blaming teachers unions for much of what ails American education: working- and middle-class parents desperate to get their charming, healthy, well-behaved children into successful public charter schools.
Here’s what you don’t see: the four out of five charters that are no better, on average, than traditional neighborhood public schools (and are sometimes much worse); charter school teachers, like those at the Green Dot schools in Los Angeles, who are unionized and like it that way; and noncharter neighborhood public schools, like PS 83 in East Harlem and the George Hall Elementary School in Mobile, Alabama, that are nationally recognized for successfully educating poor children.
You don’t see teen moms, households without an adult English speaker or headed by a drug addict, or any of the millions of children who never have a chance to enter a charter school lottery (or get help with their homework or a nice breakfast) because adults simply aren’t engaged in their education. These children, of course, are often the ones who are most difficult to educate, and the ones neighborhood public schools can’t turn away.
You also don’t learn that in the Finnish education system, much cited in the film as the best in the world, teachers are—gasp!—unionized and granted tenure, and families benefit from a cradle-to-grave social welfare system that includes universal daycare, preschool and healthcare, all of which are proven to help children achieve better results at school.
In other words, Waiting for Superman is a moving but vastly oversimplified brief on American educational inequality. Nevertheless, it has been greeted by rapturous reviews.” (End of Excerpt)
http://www.thenation.com/article/154986/grading-waiting-superman?page=full
Comment:
Reading the avalanche of popular commentaries on Waiting for Superman, I began to wonder if a mature, adult discussion was possible, given the “warlike” atmosphere. Whether you agree with Goldstein or not, at least he’s searching for a way out of the morass.
I could not have said it better myself Paul. If the USA is indeed #19 in the world as the OECD says, then the 18 nations that are AHEAD of them are using almost totally unionized public systems,and advanced social democratic social systems to mitigate their poverty. This is the secret that Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klen and Geoffrey Canada don’t want you to know.
The USA has a series of states known as the “Right to Work” states where there is no closed shop and union membership is voluntary. Most of these states do not have collective bargaining they what we call collective begging. These RTW states have the lowest test results in the nation. The states with the highest test results have the strongest unions and the most liberal states like Minnesota and Massachusetts have the highest results.
In fact the case can clearly be made in the USA that the “Blue states`Democratic Party states have much higher education results than the Red States, Republican states. Therefore where conservatives are in control reults are bad but where liberals are in control results are good.
If the USA only put its highly unionized states in the OECD, PISA TIMMS results, their results would be a great deal better.
Doug, just a remainder what and who is the OECD.
“The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalization. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and
concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an aging population. The Organization provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.”
Comparing if states in the U.S. are of different stripes politically, in one country, is a waste of time, when all states are subject to the same politically and culture contexts as one another, where the differences lie in the challenges faced by the individual states. Ditto for countries, in the top 20, that have completely different governing systems, different challenges, different culture, and some countries are polar opposites of each other, yet are in the top 20. It has been found, that it is the instruction and how it is done, that impacts the learner directly, as well as teacher quality and training. This is highly dependent on the changes made to the government policies, governance, and the foundation supports of the over-all system. In Canada, all though a bit more social in their policies, have gone a long way in stabilizing our public education system where most are graduating, it is the instructional policies that are weak, causing achievement rates to remain flat, decrease or increase at a snail’s pace.
Unions or the absence of unions, does not matter in the scheme of things. Nor does the strength of a union, or being a weak union. Unions exist to protect their workers, and where the product or in this case the children are a necessary and important component of unions, to be used to protect the union’s interests. Countries where unions are absent or are weak, have been found to be highly dependent, on teacher quality, instructional methods, and effective teacher training. The three variables, in numerous studies including OECD has shown to be the ones that matter the most, because it directly impacts the children, and achievement rates, can easily be measured. It is rather hard, to measure achievement based on union activities and contracts. But than again Doug, you know that, and it is why you keep changing the channels away from teacher quality, training, and instructional methods.
The OECD report, Education at a Glance, 2009 reports that class size and time spent on teaching, correlates to teachers salaries. According to OECD, it does not influence achievement rates. Although not stated, one can read in between the lines, to arrived at the same conclusion. Again in this report, as the others, three factors that directly impact achievement, teacher quality, training, and instruction methods. Class size, and teachers salaries are variables among many educational variables, that impact students indirectly, and can either have positive or negative influence, on teacher quality, training and instructional methods, which in turn directly impacts achievement rates.
http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_43586328_1_1_1_1,00.html#Findings
It always amazes me that the conservative forces say;
If you want top CEOs you have to pay top dollar,
If you want good doctors, you need to pay top dollar,
If you want good lawyers you need to pay top dollar,
If you want top architects you need to pay top dollar
If you want good teachers there is no need to pay good wages, there is no relationship.
P-L-E-A-S-E
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39378576/ns/today-parenting/
Obama’s comments about reform with an interview with Matt Lauer.
Doug, how you arrive at salaries and the connection, comparing a medical doctor to a teacher in a public education system, is once again trying to turn the picture.
Again, a lawyer or a doctor, are held accountable for their actions, whereas teachers and the educrats are not held accountable to the same degree. At least I can sue a doctor for malpractice or a lawyer for not doing his job, a lot easier than suing the public education system, or filing a complaint against the public education system.
At least people have choice when picking a doctor or a lawyer or even an accountant. Most parents do not have the same type of choice when it comes to the public education system.
There is no basis on salaries paid, and teacher quality and student achievement. The OECD has already stated that this is the case.
Nancy, just on thought on the teacher-doctor comparison…
Parents are the ones ultimately responsible for their child’s health and education. If my child is sick, I need to know to take them to the doctor. If they end up needing some surgery or something after that appointment, and the surgery goes badly, am I responsible? Did I go to med school? No.
If my child ends up with a bad teacher, how is this my fault?
Parents are responsible up to a point, and concerns that are brought up by the parents, is where it ends, and the professional takes over at that point, providing the options and other services based on his or hers expertise.
Going to a doctor, saying little Suzie has pains on her right side and a fever, one would expect the doctor to check the appendix, among other things. Than why when a parent has concerns over reading issues in the primary grades, showing evidence extracted from school tests, workbooks, and their own observations, how many teachers will be objective and professional as to why little Suzie is struggling in reading?
I believe a lot of decisions are being made subjectively, and where the teacher is over riding the concerns of parents, by ignoring the hard data of information collected by the parents. The hard data will not be ignored by a doctor, but is it ignore at the school level, until the child is failing or almost failing.
Yes,it happens like this way too often, not always, but way too often. Thank God doctors are not so judgemental. They just want to treat the patient.
Doctors are not judgemental, ya right.
Even supporters of charter schools are starting to say where are the results? There are a few excellent charter schools but there are 1000’s of excellent public schools so that proves nothing. On average, charter schools score behind highly similar public schools.
Even vouchers in Milwaukee after 20 years have nothing reaally to show.
The American School Wars continue to generate noise and fury, enough to produce “shock and awe” here in staid and sanctimonious Canada.
The public War has taken a new turn with the appearance of front page “Manifestos” on the State of American Education.
Leading American Edu -Blogger Larry Ferlazzo expressed his outrage (October 29, 2010) over the latest phase in the rather nasty campaign:
“Fresh on the heels of the appalling “manifesto” written by a group of superintendents and published in The Washington Post earlier this month (see The Best Posts About The Appalling Teacher-Bashing Column Superintendents Wrote In The Washington Post), former Washington, D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee and soon-to-be-former D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty have written another one titled The Education Manifesto that has just been published by The Wall Street Journal.
Here’s an excerpt:
We believe that the people in D.C. who want change were, and still are, the majority. But they face special interests—unions, administrators and opportunistic politicians—who are vocal and committed. These organized interests have a significant advantage over the public officials who are willing to do what is unpopular but right for the students. We see this not only in the District, of course, but nationwide. We need reform groups of our own, as powerful as these others but representing only the interests of schoolchildren and ready to take political action.
This kind of self-righteous zeal — anyone who opposes them does not want “to do what is right for the students” — is not a good or effective way to make change. Neither is it a particularly good behavioral role model for our students. It’s a perfect example, on the other hand, of what I was talking about in my recent Huffington Post piece “Let’s Do Less ‘Fire, Ready, Aim’” and my future guest post in The Washington Post.
I suspect the level of discourse about the future of our schools here in Sacramento is not going to be elevated by Rhee’s upcoming move here”(to California).
(Larry Ferlazzo, EduBlog)