Alberta’s most unlikely hero, Physics teacher Lynden Dorval, has finally been vindicated. Two years after he was fired in September 2012 by the Edmonton Public Schools for giving his high school students zeros for incomplete work, an Alberta appeal tribunal ruled on August 29, 2014 that he was “unfairly dismissed” and restored his lost salary and pension. There is justice, it seems, in the education world. The bigger question is – how did it happen and will it encourage more teachers to stand-up against eroding educational standards?
The Physics teacher at Ross Sheppard High School, was a 33-year veteran with an “unblemished” teaching record. He stood his ground when a new Principal arrived and intervened to end the common practice of teaching students a valuable life lesson – failing to hand in an assignment or missing a test without a valid reason – would result in a mark of zero. In Dorval’s case, he even gave students fair warning and a second chance before taking that step. It worked because Dorval , according to the tribunal, had “the best record in the school and perhaps the province for completion rates.”
The “no zeros” issue came to a head when the school’s computer generated reports were programmed to substitute “blanks” for zeros, eliminating the practice. Dorval considered banning zeros “a stupid idea” and said he “simply couldn’t follow it.” Two other teachers did the same but escaped any repercussions.
The Alberta tribunal’s decision supported Dorval because he had raised very legitimate questions about whether the policy was good for students. In the wording of the decision, “the school board did not act reasonably in suspending the teacher. The implementation of the new assessment policy has several demonstrable problems.” Specifically, since there was “no accountability or penalty for missing assignments in the new policy, there was little incentive for a student to actually complete the assignment.”
The written ruling was particularly harsh in its criticism of the principal and former superintendent Edgar Schmidt. It agreed that Dorval was made an example for challenging the principal’s authority and found that the policy was imposed without proper consultation with teachers, students, or parents. Even more telling, the tribunal was very critical of the Edmonton board for denying Dorval due process during its September 2012 dismissal hearing.
The sheer idiocy of the Edmonton Public Schools student assessment policy was clear to most outside the system. Faced with a groundswell of resistance, the Edmonton board of elected trustees itself backtracked, approving a revised student assessment policy (protecting the Lynden Dorvals) and explicitly allowing zero as a possible mark.
School system Student Evaluation policy remains a total mystery to most parents and to tuned-in high school students. Over the past two decades, provincial testing programs and school-based student evaluation have been moving in opposite directions.
Provincial tests such as the Ontario EQAO assessments hold students accountable for measuring up to criteria-referenced standards, while school board consultants promote the new “Assessment for Learning” (AfL) theories, pushing-up graduation rates through a combination of “no fail” and “do-over” student evaluation practices. Defenders of such ‘soft, pass everyone’ practices like AfL consultant Damian Cooper tend to see enforcing higher standards as a dire threat to student self-esteem.
Public school authorities have a way of silencing independently-minded teachers and many pay a professional price for openly expressing dissenting views. A small number of those educators stumble upon Canadian independent schools which generally thrive on giving teachers the freedom to challenge students and to actually teach. Thousands of public school teachers just accept the limits on freedom of expression, soldier on and mutter, below their breath, “I’m a teacher, so I’m not allowed to have an opinion.”
Why did Lynden Dorval become an Alberta teacher hero? It comes down to this: He said “No” to further erosion of teacher autonomy and standards.
Seems to me a number of concepts have been mixed without reason or explanation.
“No zeros” does not mean “no fail”. In Ontario zeroes are allowed, but if a host of other measures are taken first. In that sense Mr. Dorval seems to have done his due diligence in my following of the story and the court ruled that to be the case.
Formative assessment / assessment FOR learning is POWERFUL (John Hattie and others have researched this for decades: even I have a bit)) and does NOT contradict the possibility of students failing a course.
Those of us who play a sport, sing or play an instrument, or act need the quality feedback that is the heart of formative assessment/assessment FOR learning. That does not mean we shall all get As, but it does mean that if we take advantage of the feedback given and not give up, we shall at least improve. This links to the notion of persistence or GRIT that Paul Tough and others have noted to be a key to success.
So in reporting on the Lynden Dorval story let’s not use it to beat on some other hobbyhorse without foundation. His account indicates that he has given feedback to his students who do poorly.
Then there is the question of offering parents, students, and many teachers clear explanations with examples of what sound assessment and evaluation are and what they are for. Shame on jurisdictions if they fail to do this… and no, power point presentations do not count. but that point might be for another thread
I agree with John on all points. I especially think his last remark about the need for clear explanations and examples for all who are involved in the process of what sound assessment and evaluation are is very important, and seldom done effectively, if at all. Like John, I have spent much of my 24 years as a teacher trying to use assessment approaches and tools to help students learn and to help me to teach more effectively. I have clearly seen how positively powerful it can be when it works, and how useless or damaging it can be when it doesn’t. It consumed a lot of my time and mental energy, but I never regretted a moment spent on the journey. I also never gave zero, but I did sent letters home about missed assignments, and when the quality of an assignment merited it, I assigned assessment ratings that essentially told students the work they submitted did not even enter into the ball park of the success criteria. Then, parents were also notified and timelines given for redoing/ improving the work as well as mandatory attendance at before or after school work sessions during the redo periods. I needed to see them working on it. I taught Grade 7s and 8s for much of my career, and only one student never did or never improved an assignment. Since the assignment not done by that student was part of a small set of assessments for a cluster of learning goals, I looked at the work he had submitted for that cluster and he ended up with an overall assessment grade that reflected what he had demonstrated on the other tasks. I think the rating of Incomplete, should be used only for students who were absent for much of the teaching period, and who have therefore presented an incomplete picture of their knowledge of the learning goals for the strand being assessed. If students don’t hand in and don’t redo/improve an assignment, then they should receive an assessment rating that indicated the overall picture they have presented for the assessment period: limited, or partial understanding and skill level, for example. Or, insufficient understanding, skill etc. Just my 2 cents worth as a just-retired from the classroom teacher.
The notion that independent schools foster freedom for teachers is pure claptrap. What they do foster low wages, poor benefits, and radical insecurity. If the author has something to contribute to this debate other than straw men and back door promotion of privatization, he should try much harder.
My guess is that you will not be posting this one (without proper attribution) on your blog, Lorin. It’s not clear, however, whether you support the Edmonton school board’s silencing of teachers or whether you just oppose “school choice” in a province known for its flexibility.
Your response is mighty strange because I chose not to include a more revealing fact in the commentary. Who came to Lynden Dorval’s aid when he was wronged by the school board? The Alberta Teachers Association? No, it was the Tempo School, an Edmonton PRIVATE school:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-teacher-fired-for-giving-zeros-gets-new-job-1.1254691
Open your eyes, Lorin, there’s a bigger educational world out there and one where teacher autonomy is respected because passionate, motivated teachers given free rein can accomplish great things.
I did wonder why the ATF was quiet on the issue. I suppose I still do.
As for zeroes, like Lynn I have almost never given them. I want students to do the work and sometimes zeroes are an easy way out for students who have given up. Carol Dweck in her decades of research culminating in the book Mindsets (along with Paul Tough, John Hattie et al) see how important it is for students to “deal with failure” in order to overcome it and be better.
Was the occasional mark of zero really the issue in Alberta?
What does it say if a student gets a zero for doing NOTHING?
Just asking.
Allowing teachers to award zeros is merely an indication that you respect the autonomy and judgement of the classroom teacher. Having said that, it was not my personal, professional practice. The critical point is, in my view, whether there is any consequence for missing a test or failing to hand in assignments. I’m more comfortable leaving that to the teacher.
I’ve been concerned for some time, as you know, about the erosion of high performance standards and the incongruity of implementing provincial testing and then passing virtually everyone.
It would be nice, though a national study would cost $$$ to see what actual;ly happens in the majority of Canadian classrooms.
I pose that while we have examples of the good, the bad, and the ugly, we do not have a sense of the whole scene. PISA and other international comparisons, imperfect as they are, are what we have.
If the “erosion of standards” is real why is this?
I have been in too many classrooms to say that such decline if it exists is the foolish following of some fad like “child centred learning” vague as that term is.
I see lots of teacher centred classrooms (whatever the province might suggest) often badly done; e.g.
– lecture instead of direct instruction
– loose group work instead of cooperative learning
– not enough practice towards mastery
As for “erosions”. I see classrooms of struggling students who, when I started teaching, would have been out of school and in jobs that do not now exist.
The bar is way way up. We have gotten better for all students but not as quickly as the movement upward of the bar.
You may well be correct, John. Struggling students are far better served in public schools than they once were. That is something to be continued and defended as we move forward.
The global context has added a new dimension and alerted us to the need to raise the top-end bar. In case you have been wondering, I credit Dr. Paul Cappon with being ahead of us in seeing the coming challenge. He’s been remarkably consistent since 1992 and most of his assessments have proven to be prophetic.
Agreed on Paul Cappon’s perspective.
John says ““No zeros” does not mean “no fail”.” But it seemed to mean that to the people who put the policy in place. I think that is the problem in a nutshell.
Here we had a situation where- from what I understand- a highly effective, experienced physics teacher (who apparently grow on trees judging by how quickly he was discarded) was fired for not following an obviously misguided policy. Now I completely agree that formative assessment is a powerful tool (seems obvious to me) but was this really about formative assessment? As John states “Mr. Dorval seems to have done his due diligence in my following of the story and the court ruled that to be the case.” so this seems to be a case of Lynden Dorval following the spirit of the standard but not the letter… The difference between means and ends I guess.
So, we have a situation where a convulsion is permitted to occur because of a slavish attention to what something looks like as opposed to what it actually is. How many hundreds of thousand of dollars are spent just because of one teacher at one school. How many students had their education compromised because of this? How many other schools are going through the same convulsions but we don’t hear about because there are not- to use Paul’s name- heroes like Dorval who feel like they can afford to take a stand?
A news item here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/teacher-fired-for-giving-zeros-says-policy-hasn-t-changed-1.2753783 says “Under new regulations, teachers are required to undertake five steps to prove they spoke to parents and allowed students many chances to finish work before they can give a zero.” so if an overworked teacher hasn’t internalized the minutia of the regulation and isn’t 100% sure they have properly jumped through each and every hoop, then no zeros does effectively mean no fail unless teachers are now expected to be lawyers now as well as doctors, psychiatrists, social workers and researchers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-teacher-suspended-for-giving-0s-1.1131453 is interesting because of the student statements “If students show up they deserve a minimum mark. A zero seems a bit extreme.”… Even the kids seem to be on board with the idea that no zeros means no fail. It is also telling that “Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it” so they felt, right from the start, that it had to be a secret. How effective can a proposal be if it has to be kept secret?
Your answer is to have intensive PD… How many millions will that be? What do we get from the proposal for the cost?
The question then is if giving the occasional zero that is based solely on behavior is bad, is it worse than:
-Requiring teachers to effectively lie to parents?
-Firing and/or marginalizing effective teachers?
-Spending potentially millions of dollars convincing parents and teachers that their beliefs are wrong (and wonder if it would really change their minds)?
-Allowing students to believe that they deserve a mark for just showing up?
Hattie’s mantra of “know thy impact” should apply to School boards and researchers as well as teachers. Even a great idea can have costs that outweigh the benefits.
Willingham has a simple answer here: http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/draft-bill-of-research-rights-for-educators#comments
You state regarding my post
“Your answer is to have intensive PD…”
My answer is “quality” PD.
As for giving zeroes for behaviour. No, unless behaviour is separated from academic achievement.
As an employer I get 2 student reports
1 gets a B+ and has done his/her work, attends class promptly and works well with others
2 also gets a B+ but did not hand in a couple of assignments because they were “boring” and does not like to work with others.
I think I know which one i take.
Not sure quality is any less expensive than intensive. Ether way, neither seems to have been evident anywhere in this particular case (as i think you would agree). If you are saying that teachers should have better training then I agree fully. Are there a minority of teachers who assign purely punitive zeros? Perhaps. Maybe Lyden’s professional Autonomy was infringed on because because others were abusing theirs. Again, as you state, we don’t really know what actually happens in the classrooms. (unless you are Ken Robinson perhaps ;-))
Also, not really sure that behavior can be fully separated from academic achievement in a meaningful way through point by point regulations. Yes, someone can be brilliant without putting in much effort but that shouldn’t downgrade the effort of the student who did their assignments. Regardless, you, Paul, Lynn and Lynden all seem to have worked with the students to get good results and I would think that is the important thing. Did you need a no zero policy to do that? I am just trying to say that it seems to have been a case where a tool is being removed from the teacher’s tool box for no particular reason other than some philosophy at a huge resource cost… A solution in a desperate search for a problem perhaps?
As for the employer bit, are they ever going to get those reports with details on their ability to cooperate? And, if they did, would they look closely or know what is meant? They will know that two people received a diploma and- perhaps- would know they both received a B+. I would assume that there were going to be variances in how the B+s were received (grit vs ability perhaps) and would assume that the summative assessment (the B+) is also- in effect- an assessment of the effectiveness of the formative assessment. One is a tool and one is a result.
One reason that this has gained so much attention- I think- is that there is a worry that assessment is going to become almost meaningless (it is being discussed on the radio as I write). A diploma with an asterisk perhaps? If we head (as we seem to be) to a situation where one would need a BEd to understand the assessments, (or the Joe Blower approach of no assessments) then it becomes useless for the rest of us.
Maybe, as you seem to suggest, we should spend less money to decide what should happen and more money finding out what is happening.
As Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam stated in some important work in the UK in the 1990s teaching is too much treated as a “black box” in which inputs (reflecting some policy or other) are dumped into a school / classroom without actually seeing what happens to them inside the classroom. This usually results in disappointment.
The history of education is too often a history of untested assumptions or just bad history.
For example in the area of history some decry what they see to be a decline in historical knowledge among the young. Yet there is evidence going back almost a century that students never “knew their history”: this at a time when high schools had only a small percentage of students compared to now.
So is this particular issue one of a decline of standards and achievement or have results always been disappointing? My reading of this research literature for the last century is the latter. If I am correct, than the question is not
– Why have standards declined?
but
– Why is content mastery difficult to attain?
My experience over four decades in thousands of classrooms, including my own, confirm the appropriateness of the second question.
Completely agree with one caveat. Don’t think that standards have declined through history (No such thing as the “good old days”) but, in this case, as per the teacher’s testimony I linked to below, there did seem to be an abrupt and measurable decline in standards caused by this policy. “Huge disparity gaps between the school awarded and diploma exam marks began to emerge for the grade 12 students, which continue to grow today, further proof of the “fudging” of marks to mask the “success” of this system.”
Why independent measuring is vital… regardless of how imperfect the measurement tool may be.
in history learning- no evidence to support decline
evidence supports consistent disappointing levels since 1917.
Sorry,
Meant to say “I don’t think standards have declined through history”. I agree with you. Just trying to say vigilance is required to keep things improving and prevent backsliding.
Is our goal in education to increase our graduation rates or improve the skills needed for our students to succeed in post-secondary education? I can understand the value of formative assessment as a means to increase graduation rates for some students, but the skills and work habits created by the fear of the “zero” is beneficial to those pursuing post-secondary education.
I think the time has come for Ministries of Education to look at ways to address the significant differences that exist for students between their secondary education and their post-secondary education (whether in university, college or the trades).
No evidence that students “fear” zeroes. Rather they accept zeroes because they have given up. We did a study of the high failure rate in a civics course in Ontario. Students just decided NOT to hand work in.
Formative assessment is to improve learning, as in sports, drama, and music, not artificially raise graduation rates.
As for better connection between secondary and post secondary, ministries of ed need to do a MUCH BETTER JOB of connecting the groups.
I wonder how much these groups talk to each other when math curriculum reform is discussed.
My guess is
not nearly enough and not in the same room.
In Ontario this seemed to have been so in the late 1990s. Moreover the elementary and secondary groups did not communication during the work.
I agree with the “black box” notion… Even more so for parents than researchers. One of the things that I find so fascinating about this case is that it happened in public and allowed a glimpse into the box. Like you say about the Pisa scores, it is an imperfect look but it is what I have.
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/09/10/second-ross-shep-teacher-risks-his-career-in-defiance-of-no-zero-policy/
Here is a transcript of a second teacher’s testimony to the EPSB. Interestingly, He describes looking into the research, a research project at another school he was at and his own personal experiences. All of which, I would argue, is evidence that some students do fear zeros. (at some point anecdotal evidence does add up to real evidence). It also speaks to how this isn’t an isolated incident.
As for high school completion rates, here is a transcript of the Principal of that school addressing his staff.
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/09/05/ross-sheppard-principal-lashes-out-at-media-says-he-and-his-teachers-did-nothing-wrong-bringing-in-no-zeros-policy/
He doesn’t suggest the policy was about formative assessment but does speak to completion rates twice. Very interestingly, the the only thing he speaks to more is about how “We are leading” and disparaging the press for causing some “….to question our practices or our decisions or our future.” as if analyzing what is being done is a form of treason. A “Revolutionary Educational Leader” perhaps? Probably another thread.
My only point is that the no zeros policy seems to have as much to do with formative assessment as having a running nose has to do with having a cold. One may be a symptom of the other but taking a decongestant will not cure the cold. Same as outlawing zeros (or making them virtually impossible to give) I don’t think will solve the issue of increasing formative assessment. In fact, IMO, the policy (as was shown in Edmonton) is more like cutting off the nose to prevent it from running in an attempt to cure the cold… Even worse.
In response to and in agreement with your earlier post
vigilance is the price of democracy AND quality education.
No zero policy per se has no connection to formative assessment
formative assessment asks
– How am I / are we doing?
– What do I / we need to improve?
Since zeroes, however justified no not answer these questions they are irrelevant to formative assessment.
The news report and the Frontier Centre work cites no evidence that zeroes improve achievement, whereas hundreds of studies examined by John Hattie and his colleagues over decades show that formative assessment based on quality feedback works- like it does in sports, music, drama, etc.
Work by Tom Guskey in the US notes how little impact grades by themselves have on learning.
Not quite sure what you are getting at John. I will run through what I think you are saying through your posts here and you tell me if I am right or not. Please forgive me for my ignorance, but I am just trying to figure out what is happening at my kid’s school.
1) There is absolutely no connection between formative (I believe I understand what that is) and summative assessment (regardless of zeros or no zeros). So you disagree with my contention that summative assessment can be used to measure the effectiveness of the formative assessment as one has no connection to the other.
2) This is why you say that the link to the news report (blog) where the teacher’s testimony “cite no evidence that zeroes improve achievement”. It doesn’t matter that the testimony includes evidence that the school that the no zeroes policy was tested on saw “Huge disparity gaps between the school awarded and diploma exam marks began to emerge for the grade 12 students” Because summative assessment (diploma exams) is only useful if it improves performance.
3) If summative assessment is only useful if it improves performance, then it is secondary to formative assessment and, in effect, expendable.
Have I got the gist of what you are saying?
your points
1 Summative assessment can serve to show how effective formative assessment is since the latter to be successful needs to provide quality feedback to the learner who then FOLLOWS UP on it. If this happens then formative promotes better summative; i.e., a better grade
2. Summative is an “audit”, like a person’s temperature or weight. If high or low it says something is wrong, but it does not say what is wrong or why it is.
While summative does not improve performance, auditing is good.
One issue we have in the “ed biz” is a sloppy use of language. This happens in instruction (see 7th comment above- my 3rd) and in assessment and evaluation. Sometimes we fail to recognize the relationship between assessment and evaluation. As noted many time above coaches are aware of this all the time.
Thanks for clearing that up John. Although I would argue that well designed summative assessment can give an idea of what is wrong (ie, most of the children don’t seem to be able to work with fractions… take a look at how fractions are being taught) I am glad you think summative assessment is part of the overall equation. I have been told right to my face that the provincial exam marks don’t mean a thing as they don’t measure “what we are teaching here” (which begs the question, “what the hell are you teaching then?”) or that they are “not authentic”.
I agree about the sloppy use of language but would argue that is partially the fault of some of the open-ended, slippery and value laden nature of some of the language used… a moratorium on the use of the word “authentic” perhaps?
Out here, there is a huge disagreement about what “Math facts” means and how it was being used to cloud the discussion. One group asks about “memorizing multiplication tables” and it is answered by “children have always been required to memorize their “math facts”. Then a special teacher’s fact sheet is released to inform teachers that “Parents may confuse “times tables” with knowing multiplication facts.”.
Maybe someone should publish an “Educational Dictionary” electronically with a page (footnoted) long description and linked videos of what it looks like in practice. If someone balks and says “That isn’t cooperative learning” the publishing committee could say “then call what you are doing something else, add some links and a clear description including why it is different and the committee will decide to include it in next year’s edition”.
No general description will be able to capture all the nuance of any particular idea but it would at least be a starting point. I don’t have to know everything about natural selection to understand the “gist” of it.
Feel up to it John?
There are dictionaries of terms in education online. It get tricky when they sometimes disagree. “Operationalizing”- showing something in action would be great. Understanding often comes when a concept is seen in action that makes any dictionary definition come alive.
I used to teach a popular elective instructional strategies course at OISE called “models of teaching”. In this course we modeled cooperative learning, direct instruction and four other instructional strategies (along with variations for each) and gave students a chance to try them out in real classes. Upon return from practicum, we would debrief on their success (usual) or lack of (sometimes) and arrive at reasons why.
With OISE’s move to a graduate teacher education program the course, alas, was not included despite its popularity and the solid reviews it got from student teachers.
The project you envisage I could start, but support would be needed for the time to put in.
I understand John. I have to say that I appreciate your willingness to answer questions without resorting to vague more open-ended questions (“what really is the meaning of “is””).
Sorry about your course being cancelled. Sounds like it is exactly what is needed. It can be frustrating as a parent to see their child, who is ecstatic about learning new things, becoming disengaged about the endless projects that even he can see have barely a “thematic” connection to what he was told they were supposed to be learning. “what does gluing sticks together have to do about wind dad?”
I was just thinking that we need something to help formalize the discussions to move away from the “Tower of Babel”. I would be happy for my tax dollars to go towards having you start a project like that based on your work but I don’t get to make the decision and- for those that have the power- it seems it is more important to spend the money going after teachers like Dorval.
Thanks again.
thanks for the kind words re your post below
Simply put, Lynden Dorval became a hero because he stood up to the mindless directives of the administration who expect complete obedience and compliance to the directives. Parents only know too well of the mindless directives when it comes to the education decisions of their children. Often at the expense of the child’s education and their future. As Marni Soupcouff has expressed, “But I know of plenty of wonderful public school administrators and teachers who would love to do more for each kid — but are hamstrung by the restrictions of the board, the amount of bureaucracy they’re dealing with, and the sheer volume of children they have to serve.”. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/04/marni-soupcoff-prisoners-of-public-education/
Chris Selley expressed it this way, “So we can cheer Mr. Dorval’s “vindication,” but we know there are any number of no-zeroes schools still out there, hamstringing teachers and students who might benefit from techniques such as Mr. Dorval’s — and any number of other techniques, philosophies and approaches that might benefit individual students, but that run afoul of the public education dogma of the day.” The articles concludes, ” The real question is: Why should any child have to put up with a bad school, a bad fit, or a bad principal who treats his teachers like idiots?”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/05/chris-selley-seeking-school-choice-and-not-just-for-catholics/
As for formative or summative evaluations, it is a foreign language to parents, until the day the kids informs the parents on the questionable and confusing evaluation processes on the go. In Canada, an educator can be fired for handing out a zero or at the very least be transferred to another school for disobeying the directives of the school and school board administration. Having no-fail or no-zero policies promotes minimum effort by students. Eventually minimum effort works into the ‘I am too dumb for school’ that reflects the K to 12 educators mantra – the child has given up. The differences between formative and summative – http://edglossary.org/formative-assessment/
At the Ontario Ministry of Education website – http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf
On page 45 to 46 is of interest.
As a parent, I believe grades impacts achievement and behaviour of students. I saw it in real time, as I taught my youngest child at home to correct her learning issues in the areas of the 3 Rs. The same 3 Rs that the educators,school and school board administration had insisted there was no evidence that my child was experiencing learning problems in the 3 Rs. The crazy evaluation schemes on the go, allows far too many students to fall behind in their learning and acquiring knowledge. As a parent, I had a choice to accept the artificial ceiling imposed upon my youngest child, and by doing so, accept that my child has limited academic potential, or to smash through the artificial ceiling? I chose the latter to the dismay of the school and school board administration. I then used the crazy evaluation schemes to my advantage, to obtained a psycho-educational assessment to prove that my child is capable of academic attainment. As Seller and Soupcoff has expressed, why should the students be prisoners of a school or treat the teachers like idiots?
Nancy, I agree with what you say but, in my mind, this seems to be a management problem where the real issue is that many of these initiatives are handed down without even a smattering of what I would see as “due diligence” Check out the link I added about the teacher’s testimony to the Board (Sept. 4th- 2:33) where you actually see what was happening… even disregarding the board’s own experiments with the no-zeros policy. It is chilling.
One thing I was surprised to learn out here in Alberta is that someone can’t be a school superintendent unless they are a teacher. (I wonder why that regulation was added).
Click to access 2003_178.pdf
I am not saying that a teacher can’t be qualified to be a superintendent but am floored by the idea that the only legislated qualification to run a Billion dollar enterprise is being a teacher. If there was some room for some actual qualified managers and planners from outside of the teaching profession to be in some of these roles, maybe some real due diligence would be done.
It is like saying that the only person who can run the the transit system is a bus driver… How many children would be left behind by the buses?
Nick, I agree. Dorval became a maverick facing off with the K to 12 establishment and their authority given to the K to 12 under the provincial education legislation acts. Dorval, was questioning the legislation authority of the K to 12, and in 2014, whether it is teacher or parent or student the K to 12 establishment will put down any threat that threatens the authority of the K to 12. As a parent in 2001, I confronted in the form of an educator director, a PHD in education administration explaining to me why my youngest child did not have learning problems. It was the first time I was lectured on my alleged poor parenting skills, questionable education levels to daring to questioned the expertise of the K to 12.
In other words, in Nick’s link – “Teachers know this system is doing a poor job preparing kids for the future, yet they are forced to continue to do it because, as in Milgram’s study, “you must continue for the good of the experiment”.
There is a prevailing culture of fear among the teaching community. In my 11 year teaching career, I have witnessed those who speak out punished and made an example of by: having their favourite classes taken away, veteran teachers having their classroom taken from them and they have to resort to roaming around the school like a nomad, having their titles such as program coordinator taken away from them, or they get placed on meaningless committees that adds extra work to their already busy schedules, to name a few. The other teachers see this and learn that it is not worth it to speak out, so they withdraw and just go through the motions for the rest of their careers, resulting in a massive drop in staff morale. If teachers are allowed to speak candidly without fear of retribution, they will gladly tell you just how “successful” the no-zero policy really is here in the district. I trust these teachers much more than those educational gurus (some of whom haven’t been in a real classroom in decades). I choose to speak out on behalf of all those who can’t because I believe that if you live your whole life in fear then you are not really living.”
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/09/10/second-ross-shep-teacher-risks-his-career-in-defiance-of-no-zero-policy/
For parents, it is either complied with the mindless directives or face the consequences. Dorval, is my kind of teacher. I only met a few of them who eventually got around to asking me, what I was doing at home for my LD child becoming a very successful student academically speaking. The vast majority of classroom educators rarely have LD students in their classroom, who are maintaining 75 averages or above. Why? It goes back to the mindless education practices and policies, such as the no-zero policies.
Nancy,
So I haven’t even scratched the surface of my future frustration yet? 😉
When I was in university, I was in the Army Reserves. One summer there was a number of accidents involving Reservists in training exercises.
The Canadian Armed forces immediately jumped into action and had us all fill out wills.
I complained to my father (who worked in a publicly funded institution) that the filling out of wills had nothing to do with increasing safety. He said “They are not interested in solving your problem of safety… This is about solving their paperwork problem.”
A “Yes Minister” Clip about a hospital with 500 administrators but no medical staff.
I would love to see how the new Ombudsmen in Ontario works out. We need some measures to ensure that the focus is constantly on the students otherwise it reverts to it’s default focus on the needs of the system. Just natural drift in my opinion.
I know the frustration you speak of since I have been dealing with it in real time since the late 1970s. As I have found, it was at the dawn of the 21st century that the K to 12 education system that marked the beginning of the K to 12 taking a left turn into the jungles of eroding standards and teacher autonomy. In 1999, my family was living in Ontario at the time, I decided the neighbourhood school was not a good fit for my youngest child. So I made a half a dozen phone calls to the school board superintendent, leaving a message on voice mail. No one returned my phone calls. I also left another half a dozen messages to the school trustee, and he too never bother to returned my phone calls. One evening, I was watching the news where Premier’s Harris was urging parents to contact his office for any education concerns the parents might have. They provided a 1-800 and I decided I was going to call them. Spoke at length having a nice civil conversation for close to thirty minutes, and at the end of the conversation, the man told me to expect a phone call within 10 minutes.
True to his word, the first phone call came within 8 minutes, and it was the school board superintendent. He first whine to me that it was not necessary for me to go to the length of phoning the Premier’s office and then apologized for not returning my phone calls. My problem was solved. As for the school trustee, his call came three hours later, and he chewed me out for contacting the Premier’s office and as well for bothering him with the six short messages that I left him. Suffice to say, the latter conversation did not end well. I told him off and then hung up on him. The next day I phone the superintendent who was so ever sweet to me to inform him of the actions of the school trustee.
The year 1999 marks the decline of the K to 12 education system in my books. Even simple problems such as the simple student transfer concerning a JK student who has not yet started school formally are long drawn out affairs, that should take less than ten minutes to solve at the school board level, but are not. I can only imagine what teachers like Mr. Doval go through on a daily basis with the increasing micro-management of teachers by the supervisors while they watch helplessly seeing their autonomy being eroded in the classroom.
Today’s Toronto Globe and Mail column by Margaret Wente entitled “Schools still need the f-word,” provides some new revelations:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-schools-still-need-the-f-word/article20476668/#dashboard/follows/
Margaret interviewed Lynden Dorval and he’s not so convinced that the Edmonton policy allowing “zeros” will have the desired effect. If it requires additional paperwork, it’s not going to help at all.
I became curious after reading the Globe article. ” Therefore, students should not be marked down for late work, skipped assignments, absence, missed exams or even cheating. Instead of punishing a student by lowering their grade, schools should “apply other consequences.”
Pray tell what are the consequences? A 2012 Edmonton article Connor writes, “Second is a basic problem that has been missing from the discussion so far – correct use of mathematics. Everyone reading this learned, probably in grade five, about measures of central tendency and equal difference and ratio. We learned that to be used properly scales need to have equal difference and that the mean is an inappropriate measure of central tendency when there are outlier scores. The use of zeros in a percentage scale violates both of these mathematical principles and it seems to me that it is unethical to teach something in math class and not follow those principles in teachers’ grade books. Using zeros in grades is similar to calculating the average temperature for a week with data for only six days but calculating the average as if you had data for seven days.” http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/06/05/the-no-zeros-policy-is-ethical-rational-and-pratical-agues-ken-oconnor/
I could not stop laughing. It does explain grade inflation. It does explain the marking schemes where some students are only being graded using 5 data sets and others are being graded using 10 data sets. For some strange reason, the students having only 5 data sets receives a higher grade average than the students with 10 data sets. It would explain no-zero policies will have a tendency to drive down grades of students to the centre of the bell curve. The sole exception are the students with the A averages. For students falling below the centre of the bell curve, the no-zero policies will drive grade average up to the centre of the bell curve.
Therefore, no-zero marking schemes are ruinous for the academic dyslexic student, because most dyslexic students operates on the ‘J’ curve. However, other non-dyslexic students, approximately 40 % also operates on the ‘J” curve rather than the bell curve. A school – http://rube.asq.org/edu/2009/11/problem-solving/apply-a-j-curve-to-achieve-success-not-perpetuate-excuses-.pdf
And in Forbes – http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/19/the-myth-of-the-bell-curve-look-for-the-hyper-performers/
Thus, no-zero policies are operating in classrooms where the classroom educators are dealing with 30 or more students, each having their personal grading on the curve based on the bell curve. Wouldn’t it be much easier to use the J-curve model because it takes into account the outliers? If the J-curve was used in classrooms, zeroes would be a thing of the past. Wishful thinking on my part because it would require an overhaul in teaching and instructional practices.
Student behaviour is different than student achievement but at what point do we need to begin to show the importance of both and the relationship between the two? Is it in post-secondary education where cheating and missed assignments have a serious impact on the future lives of students? Is it when students enter the workforce and realize that work behaviour can end careers regardless of work achievement?
Waiting for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction on this issue.
In Ontario there have been steps to differentiate through the Learning Skills section of the Report Card- levelled gradations instead of percentage grades.
Biggest challenge is convincing teachers of its value (based on talking to many when I observe student teachers)
John – http://www.yrdsb.ca/aboutus/reportingstudentachievement/documents/learningskillsandworkhabitsbrochure.pdf
What do you say about children with the learning struggles in the basic 3 Rs expecting them to work and developed the six learning and work skills, when they do not have the fundamental essential skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. How does one learn to collaborate when the students thinks the students has nothing to contribute because they are not at the same level as the other students? Just wondering, because my observations as a parent as I patiently told the teachers over the years, the work skills cannot improve until the 3 Rs can be improved. Of course, it would be a big challenge to convince teachers of the value of Learning Skills and Work Habits.
The new premier of Alberta is on the right track. By focusing on coherent grading structure, the basics in reading, writing and arithmetic, and 21st century competencies. A student can only have 21st century competencies by mastering the basics in reading, writing and arithmetic. Without the basics, a student has almost no chance of achieving to their highest academic potential. http://alberta.ca/AlbertaCode/images/Mandate-Education.pdf
Mandate letter to new Alberta Minister of Education:
Click to access Mandate-Education.pdf
Twice mentions “…. coherent grading acceptable to Albertans….”
Pendulum swinging back?
To Nancy’s last post
We need to do both learning skills and the other “basics” and simultaneously
Here are a couple of experiences which shaped me involved teaching special ed,
– one with grade 4-6 three combined classes preparing them for a field trip with a parallel group from another school (social studies)
– an early attempt to integrate regular and identified special ed kids in a gr 7 and a gr 8 class
short answer
– hard work
– successful as the regular ed student came to see that the spec ed students could contribute
I run into other teachers decades later who remember the work.
Since then we have a growing research base showing clear connections between social and emotional development and academic achievement.
So in sum
– must do both and simultaneously
– in fact the two sets can contribute to each other’s attainment
– they can be planned for simultaneously in units and lessons
– I have colleagues who do this and have for years. Interestingly those teachers who come from other backgrounds such as business pick up on this more comfortably
– kids who have friends and develop resiliency do better than isolates- across the board
– this may be challenging but doable
John – Isn’t what you have just described is the model without the added effort and costs to have all struggling students to have their reading, writing and numeracy deficits corrected? John writes, “Since then we have a growing research base showing clear connections between social and emotional development and academic achievement.” A paper called The link between Social and Emotional Learning and Academic Achievement.
w.partnershipforchildren.org.uk/uploads/AcademicAchievement.pdf.pdf
A paper tying the 21st century competencies. Beyond Content: Incorporating Social and Emotional Learning into the Strive Framework – http://www.strivetogether.org/sites/default/files/images/Strive%20Together%20Volume%20I.pdf
What is never brought into the equation, are the biases, misconceptions, training and knowledge banks of teachers. A student’s social and emotional development can only improve achievement if the student has the prerequisites in the 3 Rs and background knowledge are in place. However, the achievement variable is impacted by the educators.
A White Paper – “Inclusion reformers maintain they are compelled by evidence of research, but studies actually show that low-achieving students in mixed-ability classrooms become self-conscious when working alongside classmates with higher ability. Rather than becoming encouraged about learning, students with lower ability become withdrawn and rely on the more proficient students to be participatory and provide the answers.
Loveless (1999) states, “The mixed-ability classrooms that result from de-tracking may force low achievers into daily comparisons with their more able peers, conditions hostile to the development of self-confidence” (para. 16)”
Click to access WP_Inclusive_Classroom_Model_is_NOT_Workable.pdf
Or teachers buying into the myth of the culture of poverty – http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx
Or the negative stigma associated with having a learning disability – http://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=honors_theses
A paper – The “Knowledge Base” of Self: Uncovering Hidden Biases and Unpacking Privilege – http://teachingasleadership.org/sites/default/files/Related-Readings/DCA_Ch5_2011.pdf
your sources mix apples and oranges
though the importance of teacher commitment cannot be underestimated
I speak from being born into a relatively poor family and having a l;earning disability myself. My parents were too busy working to help me with my schooling. My teachers, unevenly and imperfectly, help[ed me get an education by combining the academics, often traditionally taught, with enough care and concern that I made it. This with the discovery in my middle school of a second disability.
As I said the research back me up. I have looked at the stats and have contributed a bit to the research myself.
The origins of detracking go back to the 1970s desire by parents in both the US and Canada to integrate their children into regular classes. Well implemented, it works better than segregation. I am living proof of that as are many others.
As for perfection, I leave that to the realm of faith tradition.
and I thought the thread was about standards and teacher autonomy using the Dorval case with grading as a discussion point.