The arrival of Nova Scotia Student Report Cards in June 2013 provoked quite a reaction from parents, particularly those with students in Atlantic Canada’s largest school board. “Ridiculous.” “Meaningless.” “Mumbo-jumbo.” Those were just a few of the words used by Halifax region parents to describe the computer-generated InSchool reports utilizing PowerSchool, the province’s new $6 million student information system. After an initial attempt by Deputy Education Minister Carole Olsen to deflect the stinging criticism, the Minister Ramona Jennex, Chair of CMEC, was compelled to intervene, promising to look into the concerns.
Education officials in Nova Scotia were clearly taken aback by the reaction and acted like it was news to them that the canned reports were incomprehensible to most parents and virtually every student, certainly in the elementary grades. Education Reporter Frances Willick deserves credit for unearthing the latest parental outcry, but the concerns are not new, nor will they be fixed by a few cosmetic changes on student reports.
Some twenty years ago, educators were confronted with a wave of educational reform focused on introducing Outcome Based Education (OBE) and increasing demand for standardized testing to provide more assurance of student achievement levels. Most educational administrators and consultants reacted instinctively against such intrusions and adapted by developing some rather ingenious counter measures. Unable to stop the advance of standardized assessments, they resorted to retaining control of student reporting and turning it to different purposes.
Student reports cards have been filled with gibberish since at least the early 1990s. Much of it can be traced back to a February 1993 Ontario Ministry of Education document known as The Common Curriculum, Grades 1 -9. That document introduced teachers to the term “learning outcomes” and attempted to destream Grade 9 and replace a subject-based curriculum with more holistic cross-curricular understandings. In the case of Language Learning Outcomes, reading was downgraded and the word “spelling” dropped from the elementary lexicon. After parents rose up calling for “a set curriculum with specific goals,” the so-called “dumbed-down curriculum” was shelved, but a new student evaluation system based upon “meeting provincial outcomes” survived.
Intended as a means of providing parents with regular communication reflecting measurable standards, OBE student report cards become quite the reverse. School curriculum was re-written around “learning outcomes” and professional development was geared to teaching teachers the new “educratic” language. Communicating with parents gradually morphed from providing personal, often candid comments about students, to tiny snippets reflecting the “expected outcomes.” When Student Reports became standardized and machine-generated, the “student outcomes” jargon became entrenched and accepted, rather sadly, as a demonstration of teaching competence.
Standardizing report cards became a vehicle for implementing the new orthodoxy. In Canada’s provincial systems, OBE was captured by educators who opposed testing and sought to undercut its influence with “assessment for learning.” Grading and ranking students, once the staple of teaching, became dirty words and the initial standardized reports sought to replace marks with measures of formative assessment. Ontario’s first Standardized Report Card, eventually rejected, attempted to introduce a new set of incredibly vague measures such as “developing,” developed, and “fully developed” understandings.
Today’s standardized report cards, as bad as they are, could well have been worse. Many professional teachers, particularly in high schools, resisted the “dumbing down” of curriculum and the invasion of ‘politically-correct’ report writing. The leading teachers’ unions, the OSSTF, BCTF, and NSTU, opposed student reporting that chipped away at teacher autonomy and consumed more and more of a teacher’s time to complete. In Nova Scotia, for example, the Grade 9 to 12 reports may be littered with edu-babble comments, but they still provide percentage grades. In Grades 1 to 8, the reports still retain a watered down letter grade system.
A closer look at the Nova Scotia Power School report card reveals that the grading system has also been impacted. In Grades 1 to 8, for example, the range of grades has been narrowed to reflect the goal of equality of outcomes. The highest grade possible is now “A” and it signifies “meeting learning outcomes,” and “F” has been eliminated entirely. No one, it seems, can be outstanding or “exceed expected outcomes.”
The current flap over Nova Scotia report cards is simply the latest manifestation of a much deeper problem. Education authorities favour standardized student information systems and Nova Scotia’s 2010 full adoption of Power School was mostly driven by the need to track student attendance. The reporting module, adapted from the template with few adaptations, was essentially an afterthought. It is quite clear now that Power School was a Trojan Horse for the advance of standardized reports and the latest wave of “canned reporting” and “robo comments.”
What can we finally secure personalized, common sense Student Report Cards? Is it just a matter of linguistic cosmetics or part of a much deeper problem entrenched in the current educational system? What needs to be undone, before we restore sanity to student reporting?
Its part of the same old problem . Trying to find the single solution to cure what ails the education system and it’s the denial of individualization . They go hand in hand .
Yude Henteleff, C.M., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.), Counsel, Pitblado, Winnipeg, MN
It`s also part of the smoke and mirrors culture that`s been in place for some time.I believe they are afraid of law suits so the murkier and cloudier the water,the less anyone can pin on them.I don`t know if anyone saw the article about a father in the Toronto Star a few days ago stating his son couldn`t even sign his own name so he`s teaching him handwriting at the cottage.
I love and cherish that booklet you refer to,it`s a favorite on my shelf.
Lately I have been wondering what could be done to give parents more power,I don`t think the governments are that happy with school board administrations and their masquerades..I wonder what could be done.Society for Quality Education believes in school choice but I`m not there,it seems smoother and more efficient to get these bureaucracies accountable to the clients…
How to,that`s the question.
I don`t see why they get away without teaching kids to read,spell and write and do basic math…they MUST be accountable for that!
My first year teaching I told the truth on report cards. The principal sent me back to do every one over again. “You can’t say that” … here is the way we say that… I learned fast.
The trouble is
report cards have been flawed since their invention a century and a half ago.
Why flawed?
No mechanism for feedback- either for students or for teachers to improve.
Grades and marks and “artificial comments” are not feedback and thus do not promote learning.
In the world outside of school better assessment and evaluation procedures are more often used.
I would not blame Ontario The Common Curriculum or destreaming. Report cards have been like this long before I started in 1973.
Across America black advocates want to abolish streaming (Americans call it tracking) because tracking LOWERS STANDARDS and they are right. When I say destream I don’t mean the Applied/College/workplace stream for everyone, I mean the Academic/University stream for every single kid. When you destream FAR more kids are successful (See Oakes-Goodlad)
Streaming is the greatest dumbing down of the curriculum there is. Do I believe in shock treatment? No. Slowly phase out Applied/College /Workplace by putting percentage limits on it with each board above which the extra students would not be funded. I would begin at 20% applied and tell boards to lower that 1% per year or lose the money.
We would rapidly more from the greatest post-secondary nation to the greatest university educated nation AND the greatest PSE nation.
Streaming is an educational death sentence to those sent to lower streams.
A theoretical error, a practical failure, and a social injustice (See George Radwanski)
Once again, evidence is on Doug’s side on report cards- as I noted earlier-
and on streaming.
Streaming “could” work if implemented well, but it is not and likely will never be unless it were truly “destination driven” which it is not in North America.
Radwanski’s findings still apply.
In Germany a technical stream education has a good academic content and leads to an excellent job at Mercedez-Benz, BMW, Siemens…
In Canada it leads nowhere… not to a trade or a job.
Nonsense-more edubabble
You can either read and spell and write or you can`t,in my reading clinic the things parents appreciated the most was the truth-he`s in grade 9-reaing at a grade 2 level and he has no concept or ability to spell-
He can either write a paragraph or he can`t..
He either delivered the essay on time or he didn`t-on time-x marks-late-docked by 2 percent per day.
Check out private school report cards to learn how dear public schools…
I think you are arguing with yourself. Is somebody disagreeing? The private schools are not the public schools.
Doug has interpreted Jo-Anne’s post correctly. Her post is off topic
My deepest apologies,I must struggle with edubabble.It`s another language.
I could not understand that you both didn`t believe that murky confusing reporting about a child`s explicit progress or struggles in the classroom should be altered to deliver a clearer picture for parents as well as a child.”Tell me what I can improve on and I`ll give it a go.,Tell me what we as a family can me concerned about and how we might help and we`ll work on it this summer etc…”
Teachers would be happy to giver a clearER picture. It is adminstrative politics that prevents it. A deep seated belief that negtive comments cause chilren to shut down, regress, quit trying plus, the principals SO don’t want to deal with the prents.
As I noted in my earlier post, reports cards are by definition flawed since they do not provide directions for improvement with quality feedback.
Paul, Doug, and Jo-Anne have noted some of the specific flaws, but going back to “A”s and “Cs” or even percentage marks are no solution.
Why have reporting grades, marks, and “comments” been criticized throughout their history?
No edubabble here. A a student cannot do “x” then work for progress through feedback, teaching, working with parents, etc.
Complaining about report card language is irrelevant to student learning.
High marks are not the goal; learning is.
It works this way outside the school and within schools in the non academic areas
– music, drame, art, phys ed.
Between John and Doug – edubabble at its best. Par for the course in a public education model rooted in the 19th century matrix, where providing education to the public according to the legislation education acts that outlines the duties, responsibilities and authorization powers of the education stakeholders.
“Teachers would be happy to give a clearer picture” – fiddlesticks. Teachers legally don’t have to provide a clearer picture, period. Its why the majority of the educators do not do the kind thing for parents – by directing the parents and providing them with the correct information and knowledge so their children can be help. Instead, parents are met with a series of misleading statements that first starts with the classroom teachers, and continues up the ladder. Misleading statements that aids, abets and advances the best interests of the public K to 12 education systems and its stakeholders.
In the Ontario Education Act – 176 of instances of the word report. Report card is mentioned only once. Don’t you just love the new features to cut to the chase?
1.”Duties of teachers not limited
(3) Nothing in this section limits any duties of teachers under this Act, including duties related to report cards, instruction, training and evaluation of the progress of pupils in junior kindergarten and kindergarten, the management of junior kindergarten and kindergarten classes, and the preparation of teaching plans. 2010, c. 10, s. 16.”
2.”examinations and reports
(f) to hold, subject to the approval of the appropriate supervisory officer, such examinations as the principal considers necessary for the promotion of pupils or for any other purpose and report as required by the board the progress of the pupil to his or her parent or guardian where the pupil is a minor and otherwise to the pupil;”
Out of 176 instances of reports – only two related to report cards.
The word parents appears 22 times.
The word parent appears 214 times.
What is the purpose of education – “Strong public education system
0.1 (1) A strong public education system is the foundation of a prosperous, caring and civil society. 2009, c. 25, s. 1.
Purpose of education
(2) The purpose of education is to provide students with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens who contribute to their society. 2009, c. 25, s. 1.
Partners in education sector
(3) All partners in the education sector, including the Minister, the Ministry and the boards, have a role to play in enhancing student achievement and well-being, closing gaps in student achievement and maintaining confidence in the province’s publicly funded education systems. 2009, c. 25, s. 1.”
Who are the Partners? Its not defined, and ergo its whoever the education system and its stakeholders deems are the partners.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm#BK0
There really should be a warning sign in neon lights – warning parents and students that they are leaving their parental and student rights at the doorsteps of the schools.
As for the report cards, the latest crop of edubabble are designed to deflect and to prevent parents and students from demanding changes that enhances the rights of students and parents, that results in major alterations to the legal definition of education, and the legal duties of the education stakeholders.
The public K to 12 education system, its design coupled with the education acts do not and I will repeat are not legally bound to provide clear and concise report cards to parents and students. Ergo, misleading statements to parents and students governing report cards are permitted under the education act, because the education stakeholders are only legally bound to provide education services, and the education stakeholders has complete authorization as to the content of the education services.
We know you have nothing positive to say about public education Nancy. Easy to predict.
“Between John and Doug – edubabble at its best.’
NONSENSE!!!!!
If bloggers cannot or will not read
then the school system does need to improve,
but then again it has always needed to do that.
That’s why feedback is necessary and report cards, however they are designed, are limited.
A long time ago I suggested a little experiment, based on evidence from real data.
Look at all marks / grades from all students in a school in all reporting periods over two years (grades).
Track the trends. Do marks / grades
– go up
– go down
– stay the same
examine the reports for every student over two years.
Labels, name calling and rants with no evidence to support them other than vague conspiracy theories give social media a bad name.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
— George Orwell
Unfortunately, when parents are met with edubabble, and misleading statements from the education establishment and if they should object, the public K to 12 establishment uses their full legal authority by:
1. Delegitimize one’s opponent
2. Deflect criticism and blame by delegitimizing it.
3. Delegitimize criticism and rebuttal in advance
4. Spurious delegitimization of evidence or criticism
To which the end goal, is to reestablished the authority and expertise of the public K to 12 education system, and more importantly to redirect the discussion to the non-threatening topics that the public K to 12 education stakeholders are willing to provide in terms of education services and what the education establishment are willing to discuss.
John and Doug, provide stellar examples and how the education stakeholders are very much threatened by the provincial education acts, when the outsiders raises the legal responsibilities and duties of the education stakeholders. In Canada and likewise in the United States, the education stakeholders are not legally bound to provide a truthful account, clear and concise report cards to parents and students. However, the education authorities are legally bound to provide a truthful account of students’ education progress to their immediate supervisors, as authorized in the education acts.
Of course there is the devil in the details to be considered. In a 2008 paper, entitled, Negotiating risk: Politics, evidence and expert advice in education policy development: “The new expectations and accountabilities associated with educational governance in Canada today have changed the nature and focus of the public service, such that the policy associations between politicians and the senior public service seem have been redefined.”
http://ocs.sfu.ca/fedcan/index.php/csse/csse2008/paper/viewFile/395/265
Another paper dated 2003, entitled, Educational Governance: In the postscript-
” While changing the governance arrangements would be a striking departure from current practice, real change must go far beyond such structural steps and begin with the question, are we interested foremost in adult
agendas such as control, power and efficiency on, learners agendas and as achievement, retention and skill development? A focus solely on the former would truly be a disservice to Ontario’s students.”
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/investing/reports/rp46.pdf
Pity, since 2003 – Any changes to the education acts the focus has been on the adult agendas of the education stakeholders on increased and maintaining control, power and authorization over the students, parents and by extension the taxpayers.
The Chronicle Herald: A parent – “But Hamilton said they rarely suggest techniques for improving academic performance.
Kids “need to understand where they’ve succeeded and where they’ve failed and what they need to do to continue to succeed or what they need to do to stop failing,” he said.
“The end result is that we don’t have a clear picture of who our kid is. We have a clear picture of maybe what the expectations of the program would be, but we don’t know how she’s measuring up.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1139441-parents-weary-of-report-card-mumbo-jumbo?from=most_read&most_read=1139441
“Ridiculous.” “Meaningless.” “Mumbo-jumbo.” – are the outcomes of a K to 12 public education system that is designed to keep students secondary to the the interests of the public education stakeholders. I shall repeat again, the public education system as outlined by the education acts are only legally bound to delivered education services, and the content of the education services are left to the education stakeholders and have full authorization under the education acts. to decide on content.
In the comment section of the Chronicle Herald article from a teacher: “Just one of the reasons I left the teaching profession. We wonder why students are struggling with basic skills but need look no further than the system that claims to be educating them.”
Our terrible education system is considered the best by far in the English speaking world. The vast majority of students are successful. Nancy does not believe that. For her the glass is always half empty.
Name a country with a better graduation rate. Right… there isn’t one. University college grad rate best in the world… universities moving rapidly up world rankings… terrible.
To which any self-respecting educator will deflect away from who and what components have the responsibility and authorization concerning report cards, to one way off in left field, that Canada has the best education system in the world, base on but often omitted the percentage of population having some post-secondary education and as well post-secondary degrees/certificates
“Top 10 countries by percentage of population (aged 25-64) with university-, college- or polytechnic-level education”
http://www.canada.com/business/Canada+gets+higher+education+public+funding+needs+work+OECD/8574822/story.html
What rarely is mentioned, because it would reflect badly on the K to 12 education system, is the number of careers and jobs that now need a college certificate or degree since the year 2000. Its not a coincidence that Canada broke the 50 % milestone due mainly that many different lower and high skilled jobs that now presently requires post-secondary, where previous it was only grade 12. Nor is it a coincidence, that the post-level institutes now offer, upgrading, remediation and for the colleges, programs to obtained a grade 12 diploma. As for the college/university grad rate – for Canada – cited expected percentage to complete university education – 35 % compared to 2001 – 27 %.
Back to report cards – ” Some parents are reasonably concerned that the move to qualitative grades at the junior high school level will dilute their meaning. The CBE has proposed, “exemplary”, “evident”, “emerging”, “needs support” and “insufficient evidence” as new measures of learning outcomes. These are broad categories. But do we really need more detailed measures? ”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/report-cards-without-grades-coming-to-calgary-mistake/article12524077/
It makes the tasks of the educators to the principals to the school board staff a whole lot easier to hide the academic weaknesses and basic foundation skills of students. Meanwhile over at Montgomery County in the U.S., the education stakeholders have come up with their own set, that includes ES – exceptional.
A parent’s comment says it all – “This is just an extension of “everybody gets a trophy”.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-27/local/39557965_1_report-card-standards-grades
The education stakeholder in the K to 12 education system, the educators for the most part are advocating for the elimination of the report card. No matter where I have gone this afternoon on the web – overwhelming support to downgrade the report card and at the end elimination.
http://www.pernilleripp.com/2011/11/why-report-card-should-be-getting-f.html
On Ontario TVO – Tom Sullivan on the Problem With Report Cards
A retired educator, who doesn’t like what is happening to the report cards. So he tried to do something about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g1TElhJ_cg
That was in 2009, and no doubt I bet Tom never thought it would go from bad to worse in 4 years.
Paul’s questions: “What can we finally secure personalized, common sense Student Report Cards? Is it just a matter of linguistic cosmetics or part of a much deeper problem entrenched in the current educational system? What needs to be undone, before we restore sanity to student reporting?”
A complete reconfiguration of the education act that devolves the powers and duties of the education stakeholders to where the education stakeholders serves the students and their education needs. Considering that most of the law and policy papers have clearly pointed out, that education policy and decisions are being decided on the political agendas and the best interests of the education stakeholders.
Asked yourself, who does the new no grades report cards serve? Can’t be the students and parents……….not by a long shot.
In the movie A Few Good Men – the Jack Nicholson character on the witness stand finally blurts out… : “You Can’t Handle the Truth”. This is the system’s attitude to report cards. Students DO shut down quit trying under too much criticism. We KNOW this with our own children. The need 80% praise for good things (not false praise) 20% … um….. redirection.
Oh I am sure, Doug was the fountain virtuous truth? Hum, I bet few educators across Canada, have been honest with parents or the students. If they were, they would have answered the questions of parents and students truthfully and then proceed to tell them how to increase achievement. Instead, parents gets the solutions that best fits the best interests of the education stakeholders. So many children go without effective reading, writing and numeracy remediation because the public education system built in the 19th century knowledge matrix teaches to the best and the brightest of the students. Everyone else must adjust, and for the students who don’t adjust, they get the watered down, dumb down education services, that puts the students further behind as the years progress.
As for the reports cards, as the years have rolled by the grades reflects the subjective opinions of the educators’ expertise rather then the objective data evidence. Its how a kid from grade 1 to halfway to grade 8, fails every language arts demand written test, quiz and the demand written portion of standardized testing, and somehow manages to received a C plus grade in Language Arts from grade 1 to grade 8. Meanwhile, a parent dutifully asks what can I do about improving my kid’s grades from grade 1 to grade 8, and throughout the years a series of responses based on the subjective opinions and providing misleading statements by the educators and school board staff based on the supposedly fact, that the educators insist is a fact, that parents can’t handle the truth???
Only in the public education system, will falsehoods becomes the method to justified the actions and behaviours of the education stakeholders to protect the public education system’s legal authority and expertise.
Of course Doug, uses the stereotypes much beloved by some education stakeholders of the 19th century school master of strict discipline and harsh physical punishment, to backed up his premise that students shut down and quit trying. Its a bit more complex then that, since all people will quit trying under a barrage of criticism, and is not exclusive to children. In the 21st century, there has been advances made in the area of praise and self-esteem and more so for the education systems of the 21st century. In schools, self-esteem boosting is losing favor to rigor, finer-tuned praise – http://robertbobsonresearch.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/false-praise-lessens-student-performance/
Fighter tooth and nail, the public education establishment is also against some parts of the new science knowledge being generated. For example, “Typically, young children don’t second-guess praise. But teenagers understand when feedback is useful and authentic. “Great job!” doesn’t tell them what was great about what they did, experts say. “They know that everything they do isn’t ‘Magnificent!’ ” Hellie said.”
On good authority, and a mountain of research that children also understand what is authentic praise and what is false praise. In particular, LD students are excellent detectors of false praise and authentic praise because of the fact that the LD students whose main struggles are in reading, are subjected to the false praise from the beginning, because of the public education system’s culture of working to the best and the brightest of students. It certainly shows in report cards, and to which my youngest pointed out to me on her grade 6 report card. Not one comment as to how far she came from being at the bottom of her grade 3 class, to the outstanding achievement within a two year period. I was the only one authentically praising her while the educators were given her false praise and falsehoods on her abilities. Confirmed, when I took the first grade 6 report card, and asked the question, what are the academic strengths of my child. Suffice to say, it became an exercise of behaviour traits, and my response to the grade 6 teacher was, I actually do expect all my children to behave and be polite to all the adults in the classroom and teachers. It devolved into another testy parent-teacher interview, that my child is not academic material based on the subjective and misconceptions of the teachers have towards students with weaker foundation skills and abilities.
Wrote this years ago.
http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/Reportcards.html
“I responded, “Fred it is the truth, the kid is behind and we have to do something”. He said, “of course it is true but you cannot say it like this, this is for a phone call to the parents or the parent’s night discussion but can you imagine the student’s self esteem problem if he sees this report”? I said, this guy already has almost no self esteem, I have phoned the parents many times, they won’t come to parents night, I have even offered to go to their house but nobody is concerned so I want it on the record that this is serious.”
Its this type of thinking that actually prevents the educators from doing what is best for the students, and as Doug did, do what is best for the public education stakeholders. I have my own scenario of what the conversation was concerning my child when she was in the primary grades. The teacher probably wanted to socially promoted her, and the principal would probably say, “No, we can’t do that because that would give Mrs. ____________, the edge to demand assessment testing and she would get it too.” So my child was never part of the socially promoted kids, who did end up getting a little bit more attention in the next grade, and my kid got very little or none. When I saw the grade 1 end year report card, a certificate drops out of the envelope, stating that my child has met all achievement standards and has been promoted to grade 2. I phoned just to see what the principal would say, and his response, “Well this is a first, a parent complaining about an achievement certificate.”. Now looking back, I can see why my child was not socially promoted, because more then likely I would have ruin the ‘happy blissful’ state of parents whose kids were being socially promoted. About 20 parents back then, and now the same parents regret their actions and are very steamed and frustrated that the school led them down the garden path.
Doug, you only had one, and just imagine if you have half the class being significantly behind in reading and writing and its report card time? The public education culture has not change much since your early days, and for the most part report cards and parent-teacher interviews have become meaningless jargon. You yourself have stated – “professional arrogance”, at the root. But one should add, professional arrogance that has led to the inability of the public education stakeholders to communicate with parents with honesty and forthrightness. A 2008 article, called The Disadvantages of an Elite Education, that speaks of this arrogance. http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/#.UeC2SdLVCSo
For the vast majority that works in the public education system, all have education degrees, and have been taught well to see themselves as professionals who know what is best for the students. The people with education degrees are socially conditioned to see themselves as being the authoritative voices within the school culture, and as Doug has experienced their authoritative voices are quickly extinguished. The authoritative voice is exchange for the culture of compliance, that reflects the cultural and personal beliefs systems of those who are in the upper levels throughout the public education system. Its probably why, teachers no longer have the authority as they once did on report cards. In the end the teachers are forced to complied to misleading statements, false praise because in the upper levels of the education stakeholders, one common belief value, it is right and just to mislead parents because we are the experts.
It has been my experience and observations its the arrogance of the upper crust of the education stakeholders that will not allow the outsiders who are without education degrees to level criticism of any kind, in fear that parents may want more than the contempt and dishonesty that is directed at them. What else is it, but contempt and dishonesty that forces a teacher to provide false and misleading statements on students’ report cards and as Doug has stated, in his blog link – “Can you imagine the demands on the system if we told them all they were all behind?” I rest my case, that the public education system only teaches to the best and the brightness, and the rest don’t matter.
Today’s Halifax Chronicle Herald features my Commentary on the origin and evolution of “robo-report cards” and a response to the little tempest by Education Minister Ramona Jennex. The pieces are best enjoyed when read one after the other.
Start with my column:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1141650-a-history-of-robo-report-cards
Now read the Minister’s official response, for the record:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1141658-for-the-record-boards-asked-for-clear-report-card-language
Comment:
The Minister now seems to favour clear, understandable reports, but it looks to me like a prime example of “political linguistics” in an election year.
Paul – “. It will take more than cosmetic changes in political linguistics to root out the problem.”
Jennex has no intentions of getting to the bottom, and robo report cards will be the new norm.
I suspect there was the devil in the details, when one reads ‘constructive feedback’. An overused word by politicians and the top levels of bureaucrats. It should be banned. At Hay Group which is a global management consulting firm, its defined as – “Communication that brings to an individual’s attention an area in which their performance
could improve, in a manner that helps the individual understand and internalize the information.
Constructive feedback does not focus on fault or blame; it is specific and is directed towards the action,
not the person.
Constructive Feedback is:
Useful
Meaningful
Impactful
Easy to understand
Constructive Feedback is not:
Critical
Accusatory
Vague”
http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/forms/documents/ConstructiveFeedbacksummary.pdf
I stumbled upon it quite by accident, in the LD blogs years ago, and on the very topic of parent-teacher interviews and report cards. Constructive Feedback is the new breed of controlling the discussion, to prevent people from questioning the assessment, but more importantly in the school context, having parents/students to follow the processes in place, where parents are to give objective feedback to the teachers, and the focus becomes the parents and their actions. Its all about controlling the conversations, and governments loved this type of control over the public. Make the public think that they have a voice, but in reality they do not have a voice.
“Remember the following:
When giving feedback:
Be constructive
Focus on observed behaviour
Make feedback objective
Be specific
Keep it short and concise
Focus on the issue, not the person
Be timely
When receiving feedback:
Listen
Ask questions for clarification
Don’t get defensive
Don’t argue
Reflect
Take suggestions to heart
Handle feedback with care”
In a parent-teacher interview, and for that matter it could be the principal to the Director of Education – it holds true, and why parents do get so frustrated with the local public education system. When giving feedback, this is the process for parents and when receiving feedback, this is the process for teachers. Pull out any parent-teacher tips and one will see the identical underlying processes at play.
Its one devil that has allowed the robo report cards to blossom and multiplied. At least in the old days, constructive criticism was used in the comments of the report cards, and it became clear to the parents where there children stood. Constructive feedback, the new breed that controls and impedes the public’s ability to give constructive criticism. Criticism is the new dirty 4-letter swearing word in the lexicon of the public education system. I wager parents appreciates and values constructive criticism in their child’s report cards and really appreciates it, seeing the red and black scribbles on their child’s essay showing where the student has gone wrong, and showing how to improved for the next time. The good news, constructive feedback can be derailed, to which is another topic. Any good lawyer does it all the time.
The second devil in the details is PowerSchool. As a parent I don’t think much of it for a number of reasons. In fact, its one more layer that prevents communication between home and the school. To which will be reveal, but first what are the underlying ideologies behind PowerSchool.
On the CEA web site – Grant Frost.
“Now, all might have been right in the world if that had been a simple instruction to teachers. “Hey, folks. Let’s lay off the ‘Johnny is a good kid’ comments for awhile and tell parents what the kid needs to do to improve in the outcomes.” But, alas, many jurisdictions here in Nova Scotia took it one step further, instructing teachers that comments needed 1) an anchor statement explaining the student’s achievement of the outcomes followed by 2) an area of strength, 3) an area of required improvement, and 4) a strategy for making those improvements. These comments were to be solely outcomes based, less than 400 characters and approved by administrators. Comments deemed as not following the guidelines were sent back to be redone, often under exceptionally tight timelines.
So here was the dilemma of the classroom teacher. Create purposeful comments about student achievement following a rigorous standardized format using only references to the outcomes and wording that parents can understand and, oh, by the way, do not change the intent of the outcomes when messing with the wording. Got it?”
http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/grant-frost/2013/07/5/nova-scotia-report-cards-make-odd-bit-summer-reading
Unfortunately, Frost reveals his philosophy beliefs, that many of an classroom educator shares – “Because at the end of the day, we know that the outcomes are not important. It is not the destination, it is the journey that creates brilliant education.”
Perhaps for educators, but not for parents and students. Outcomes are just as important and in fact its the overriding factor that trumps all other factors. The achievement outcomes are what parents will used as their base, to make decisions for their children on what if any changes will be made at the home front. The problem that all parents share, is when the changes have to be made at the school, and educators who values the processes of learning over the outcomes. The robo-report cards are designed to confused and confound parents and to which the robo-report cards has its focused on the process of learning, with little emphasis on outcomes of students.
From stage right, enters PowerSchool – “PowerSchool is the fastest-growing, most widely used web-based student information system, supporting 10 million students in all 50 states and over 65 countries. PowerSchool enables today’s educators to make timely decisions that impact student performance while creating a collaborative environment for parents, teachers and students to work together in preparing 21st century learners for the future.
PowerSchool provides the full range of features needed by administrators at the district and school level in addition to portals for teachers, parents, and students.”
http://www.pearsonschoolsystems.com/products/powerschool/
Ken O’Connor – one of the education gurus behind the no-grades reports cards, the new assessment evaluation that really makes no sense to students and parents. On the upside, and that is if you want to call it an upside, students can gamed the system, to ‘do school’ more effectively without putting in any effort on their part. I would loved to be in school today, being a classic underachiever I would never have to hear teachers lectures on my abilities ever again. In my day, teachers actually had high expectations for their students, and were bitterly disappointed that students did not lived up to their expected academic aptitude. Today, none of the classroom educators have the knowledge of their students and their academic aptitude scores. Nor have the historical information of learning issues of students, at their fingertips. It has now become the parents’ job, and it should not be part of their responsibilities.
Next post – Who is Ken O’Connor?
“Ken O’Connor is an independent consultant from Toronto who specializes in issues related to the communication of student achievement, especially grading and reporting.” On the Pearson web site.
http://www.pearsonschoolsystems.com/region/cn/
Pearson is proud to have integrated Ken O’Connor’s philosophies into its web-based gradebook, PowerTeacher 2.0.
Ken O’Connor is the Grade Doctor
http://www.oconnorgrading.com/index.php
His influence is across Canada. However, is PowerSchool effective for parents and students? The jury is still out on that one, and I suspect its still out for the classroom educators as well. Power School, came into play in the 2012 to 2013 school year. As a parent, I found it not at useful unless you have a kid that is skipping classes. Its not at all user friendly, and as I discovered on my own that PowerSchool is an effective control mechanism for the bureaucracy and administration at the school board level. The school districts stresses its an accountability measure to the individual students, done in real time. However it is being billed, there is no protocols put in place for parents to used the information in real time.
In NL – the PowerSchool Parent Portal
http://www.esdnl.ca/pschool/files/GradesandAttendance.pdf
Reminds me of one way communication done in the 20th century, to the new version of one-way communication in the 21st century. A Pearson document on parent user guide for Power School. http://www.eusd4kids.org/PDF/PowerSchool/ps_parent_user_guide.pdf
So as Paul had written in the news article – “Nova Scotia’s 2010 adoption of PowerSchool was mostly driven by the need to track student attendance. The reporting module, adapted from the template, was essentially an afterthought.
The Power School system seems to have become a Trojan horse for the advance of standardized reports and the latest wave of canned reporting and robo comments. It will take more than cosmetic changes in political linguistics to root out the problem.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1141650-a-history-of-robo-report-cards
Don’t know about Power School being a Trojan horse, Power School serves as the function as increasing parental awareness, but in reality a parent has increase data information about their children, but how many are able to detect trends and patterns of the data? Don’t know, but due to Power School being so user unfriendly, I never bother to use Power School, and the only time I open it up, when my youngest was obsessing about her grades, when she should have been obsessing about improving her studying habits and related homework practices.
Below one of the few web pages where criticism is directed at Power School. Power School is too new, but there is the other nagging question and that is parents are not using Power School at all. Ergo, criticism has not reached he critical point.
http://www.twopeasinabucket.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&thread_id=3175724
Another blog community condemning the Power School product.
http://community.spiceworks.com/product/7404-powerschool
As for parents and students accessing Power School, a pretty good chance that the system is shut down for one reason or another. As for Ken O’Connor, pushing Power School unto the unsuspecting public and classroom educators, he needs to become more open about the processes how the grades are arrived at. On his site – “The purpose of “Ask the Grade Doctor” is to answer substantive questions about grading and reporting philosophy, policy, procedures, and practices. I will not answer questions that are only about the calculation of grades.” For parents, its a big concern the calculation of grades………..and students too.
http://www.oconnorgrading.com/ask.php