I had to laugh at the last sentence. The only question I have, do any of them know how to teach reading?

when I went to university, we used to call those courses/degrees bird courses.  The trouble is, that deep down people who haven’t had to work hard for something know this and it affects them.

Wait until the newly minted teachers, go into a classroom, and discover rather quickly what was taught at teachers’ college was a waste of time and money.

I had a student teacher working in my Reading Clinic who refused to attend her graduation and said what they`d taught her was a joke-make books-dance and colorfully develop bulletin boards-

She was horrified at the superficiality of the course-the other girls in my Reading Clinic were superb educators-
One an MA in Psych-the other a very wise Montessori trained teacher-
We saw it all-a PHD in Education who had no idea how to teach Reading…

What was most interesting about all of this was that people in the audience, total strangers to me, pointed this out to me as we sat waiting for the ceremony to begin.

I would be very interested in finding out if other B.Ed. grads from other Universities are graded similarly.

It’s almost as it inflated grades have come full-circle and the students who rec’d those grades are now being pushed along and in a position to follow that same pattern for the next generation of students…and then some.

I do wonder how these “high distinction” grads feel today as they face reality and years of unemployment?

Here are some typical assignments for education courses:
http://www.educationation.org/wakawaka.htm

Nowadays you may see the same thing done in Power Point, but the level of intellectual acumen will not be any higher.

Remember, most of these are for graduate courses (most teachers in Ontario already have a B.A. in a real field before they go to a Faculty of Education. Chuck’s example is one of the fewer undergraduate teacher programs -York U. and Brock U. also have undergraduate teacher ed programs but most teachers get a B.Ed after completing a B.A. or B.Sc.)

Looks like that terrible Ontario education system worked for your kid Chuck.

This is why I have advocated all along that teaching should only be allowed after an M Ed or turned into a real Master’s program. Funny, if I say make it real I get resistance here. If we leave it alone we get criticism here. Which is it? You want better teachers, make it much harder to become a teacher but guess what? This type of grad will demand both more money and more autonomy.

Here’s a question for you, Doug, just out of curiosity.

What specific skills would the average teacher pick up in a M.Ed. that they wouldn’t have picked up in a B.Ed?

M Eds I would assume, are not so much about “skills” as they would be about reading all of the latest and most trenchant research and producing new knowledge through research themselves.

Finland, highest teacher education demands, highest PISA test scores. They say the teacher education puts them in first place.

Perhaps in Finland, but M Eds in Canada may be highly questionable. about their breathe of knowledge across areas.

correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the Finnish teachers have masters degrees in the maths, sciences, literature, etc.
Here in Ontario, I can’t see an M of Ed doing anything.  Firstly the teachers would have no teaching experience to draw on, and secondly, any degree which teaches decorating bulletin boards colourfully and where 100% of the graduates receive HD, must have extremely weak syllabi, if one could even call it that.  What base would this be for going on to do a masters I don’t know. 
Too bad for the kids who enter teachers colleges with dreams of educating children…

Doug, follow up question.  Why would a classroom teacher need to be up to date on current research?  Ministry and/or board staff designing curriculum - of course.  Principal and spec ed teacher, maybe, depending on duties.  But classroom teacher?  M.Ed as a requirement sounds like (expensive) overkill.

Most Finnish teachers have TWO masters degrees. First, they get a masters degree in science, English, history, math etc and then are admitted to teacher training that is at such a high level a second MEd type degree is conferred. If a subject is in high demand but not enough candidates have masters degrees they are taken without. It is not that the first masters is absolutely required but without it, the candidate is simply not competitive to enter the teachers’ program because once they take those with Masters there are usually no places left for those without first “subject” masters.

At TDSB about 20% of the staff have a second degree. To be a true professional is not a machanical exercise. “This is how to teach, do this”. It is very important that the teacher also have the theoretical basis for the understanding of not only WHAT to do but WHY this is the best way to do it.

Finland has put themselves in first place with this kind of thinking. BTW Finnish teachers are only paid a kind of northern European average in wages. To top it off, the state pays the teacher trainees as if they were first year teachers.

Some people know how to do it right. Others refuse to follow, no matter the results.

1) >>Most Finnish teachers have TWO masters degrees. First, they get a masters degree in science, English, history, math <<

Thank you ! So they have first of all relevant subject matter knowledge.

I would assume that in Finland somebody with a Master degree in English would not teach Math and the opposite.
There is nothing here for elementary teachers - as far as I know - that enforces that they should only teach subjects they have had their BA in.

Here it is a free for all superimposed on an idiotic curriculum.

2) If somebody goes to do a B.Ed. here directly after high school what exactly do they learn in 4 years?
What stops them from learning - in 4 years - the basics of teaching math, english, science?

It’s 4 years for God’s sake.
An engineer after 4 years has to be able to for example make sure construction is built up to code, that devices work. If they don’t they can maim people or cause huge damage.

And we are saying that after 4 years of a B.Ed. it is impossible for somebody to be competent teaching basic math and how to read?
Either the B.Ed. program is bullshit or you are consistently selecting the wrong people into the program.

Doug chimes in with “Looks like that terrible Ontario education system worked for your kid Chuck.”

1) thankfully he took engineering where the status of graduating with distinction actually means something.

2) thankfully this child had primary teachers who bucked the whole language trend, closed their doors and taught phonics, spelling, and Saxon math. They also corrected bad grammar so that by the time this kid was in middle school he knew the difference between right and wrong ways of language.

3) thankfully in grades 7 & 8 this child had specialist teachers who challenged students in math and didn’t make them afraid of the tough new standards Mike Harris brought to the system.

4) thankfully the teachers didn’t bring their politics into this child’s classroom. As a matter of fact I remember a parent-teacher interview where the Gr. 6 teacher confidently said that it was about time.

5) thankfully, in high-school this budding engineer came through the system when Calculus was still a stand alone subject and the teacher new how to teach it. Same with Chemistry and Math. (Three years later and this was not the case).

6) thankfully this child had teachers who had expectations and standards with respect to what qualified as good work and what the consequences of bad work was.

As parents we are thankful for the educators who managed all of the above and didn’t make excuses and new the difference between work of distinction and work of mediocrity.

Not so this faculty - or so it would seem.

Chuck, you were one of the lucky ones.  So were all of the children who had these teachers.

My son is also an engineer, but there are so many things that have been missed in his education—he doesn’t speak another language, he gave up his music which he was very good at because he was the only boy in the school taking piano, and there was no music taught compared to what I remember in public school i.e.:  never taught the sol fez scale.
He loved to read while in Asia, but here the public school teachers were not qualified to teach literatrue or so he stagnated and began picking up bad grammar which we had to correct.
Our system is most likely one of the worst, but with a lot of work by parents some children survive, and that is a far cry from thriving.

So were all of these excellent teachers in the public system Chuck?

Bev, our system is consistently referred to by experts as one of the best.

And who are these so-called experts, Doug?

Well Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch spring to mind but there are many. One only needs to look at the PISA/TIMMS data and the fact that we graduate a higher % of our kids from post secondary than any nation on this Earth to have most experts say, wow that Canadian system is one of the very best.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a critic and believe we can do much better but I forget if I mentioned this part before. It will cost a great deal of money but it is still worth it.

Be careful Doug, the use of post-secondary, includes all institutions and the trades. It is in the trades, where the graduates are, and not at the university level, depending on the province are under the 25 % mark. It is the same percentage that is found in the United States.

Can you not name some Canadian experts?

Of course the discussion gets sidetracked off the real point of this post—are standards for education students lower than for other faculties?  It seems obvious that they are.

TDSBWs examples of the kind of work that education students do gives one a good idea of that.

And btw, my eldest is a graduate of U of T engineering (cum laude) and he is NOT a product of the public high school system.  The iron ring that he wears is a constant reminder “to obligate themselves to the highest professionalism and humility of their profession. It is a symbol that reflects the moral, ethical and professional commitment made by the engineer who wears the ring.”

I absolutly do agree with Chuck on the differences between child 1 and child 2 on the inconsistent   quality of teaching and curriculum in the elementary level at the time my kids were going through Catholic schooling.  It is the reason I got involved in education reform policy. 

Oldest child got the traditional teaching by older teachers, second child got the worst of child-centred, whole language crap and the problems that go along with it.  The luck of the draw is what it was about.  By the time child #3 came along, I was a member of OQE and was taking no chances. I “school-proofed” before any more damage could be done.

bev wrote “Chuck, you were one of the lucky ones.”

“Luck” is exactly the right word Bev because in a small town with a small school we don’t have the luxury of being able to move our kids to other classes of the same grade, AND, none of the classes were large in number until the class cap came on the scene and split classes were the result. 

Just a few short years later though and with another child, as those old school teachers retired and took their proven programs with them I can’t say that we or our other kids were as “lucky” as our first.

Once again Doug spins “So were all of these excellent teachers in the public system Chuck?” 

yes they were but they were also quick to speak candidly with parents about how, when they stuck to proven programs like phonics and Saxon math they felt the heat from admin. and their colleagues.  These teachers weren’t the norm in our case they were the exception.

Nancy,

My understanding is that “the trades” are not included unless a real community college diploma is involved. Canada is also about #4 in % of students who graduate from university behind USA, Japan, and Ireland. We all know what “university” means in the USA, some excellent world leading institutions and some that should not really qualify as universities.

I’m just so pleased that Chuck’s son was so well served by our public education system no matter how he spins it. Good for you Chuck we need more positive reaffirming stories like yours.

Doug and others.

•Higher education refers to a level of education that is provided at academies, universities, colleges, vocational universities, community colleges, liberal arts colleges, institutes of technology and certain other collegiate-level institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools, and ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postsecondary_education

•Tertiary education, also referred to as third stage, third level, and post-secondary education, is the educational level following the completion of a school providing a secondary education, such as a high school, secondary school, or gymnasium. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postsecondary_Education

•A formal instructional program whose curriculum is designed for students who have completed the requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent. ...
oregonone.org/glossary.htm

In the international stats, postsecondary includes any course, where the requirement is having a high school diploma. As for trades, such as a mechanic or even a millwright, it requires one to go to a college, and be connected to the college in good standing, to continue in the apprenticeship program.

Now in the trades, many of them are required to take refresher courses every 5 years or so, in order to maintain their certificates.  The employer and employee shares the costs, but sometimes the employer does not do it. It is left for the employee to pick up the costs of what is about $2000 or so.
The trades are included, because there is formal education within a college setting.

In Canada Stats:
Postsecondary education includes formal educational activities for which high school
completion is the normal entrance requirement. Postsecondary education providers
develop and deliver formal educational activities and award academic credentials to people for whom the normal entrance requirement is high school completion.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/af-fdr.cgi?l=eng&loc=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/81-595-m2009071-eng.pdf&t=Statistics Canada’s Definition and Classification of Postsecondary and Adult Education Providers in Canada (Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics: Research Papers)

In the stats, post secondary is broken down, and it now generally includes adult education.

As far as learning, the skilled trades offer more, compared to some of the degrees here in Canada.  They are a waste of taxpayers’ and students’ money and don’t belong in a university.  I think they’re there simply to fill university coffers.

That’s interesting, Nancy, and it means that in Canada a lot of our higher learning institutions don’t meet the criteria, since there is so much grade school remedial work that needs to be done in the basics for students entering both college and universities nowadays.

“I’m just so pleased that Chuck’s son was so well served by our public education system no matter how he spins it. Good for you Chuck we need more positive reaffirming stories like yours.”

Never let a good spin get in the way of the smoke and mirrors. It’s what the system does best, and it’s what this post-secondary did in bloating the teacher grads. graduation standing. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

Yesterday I watches something that is typical of many many teachers-sadly-

Results don`t matter to them-getting effective results is not a concern-they seem strangely narcissistic.

I think that`s why the U.S. has come up with the plan to link student scores to teachers-can you imagine not feeling pressured to succeed with the children designated to you-they are laissez faire.This is very frustrating to everyone in a board.And ,this is not a slight at the caring responsible educator-and there are many of those too-not enough though.

I sound like a broken record but truly-Accountability is essential!

Joanne, I think there is a big difference between urban and rural teachers. Rural teachers become more accountability on their own, because they live within the small communities and watch the kids grow up. In grade 10, my child will be able to get help at some teacher’s homes for math, english and other subjects, whenever she wants to. They really want her to succeed, despite her learning difficulties. In an urban area, this would be difficult to say the least.

On accountability, it doesn’t begin or end at the teacher’s door. Accountability measures have to put in at each level, and at each level, the programs have measures that can actually be measured. At the moment, programs if they can be measured, are wide open to a wide variety of interpretation. This leaves the door open for not being accountable at any level and in any department. All it does, is allowing the kicking of problems going up and down through the levels, where the solutions are often as ineffective as the programs.

One just has to look at what is in an IEP. Improve reading is not the same as improvement in reading up to 100 words a minute, with make 3 mistakes or less, within 4 months. The former is vague, and no accountability. The latter, is putting in the accountability, and making it very clear what the goal will be in reading. One sees the same thing, in tying the curriculum outcomes to standard testing. The curriculum outcomes are numerous yet the standard testing only measures much smaller outcomes. As a result, teachers feel the need to teach to the test, covering all the outcomes, so the odds that most students will pass the standard testing. The probability is that the more that is covered, the majority will pass the test. The ones who don’t pass, other factors are blame such as having LD, or another disorder, but never the curriculum and not the reading problems of the students. It leaves everyone off the hook, except for the students.

Nancy-not to be rude-but you don`t know everything.

I think it is getting annoying that everything funnels through your eyes and ears-there are other observers.

There are other mind sets.
I am compassionate and admire your depth of knowledge-it`s truly remarkable..

But…..

Nancy, it’s really good that you’re getting help for your daughter from a teacher.  Personally, my take on it is that you’re so determined to get her a good, quality education that others are picking up on your enthusiam!  As I said, it’s my guess.

As far as rural children getting a better quality education, I sure didn’t find that when I returned from Asia.  Worst of all, rural teachers are often protected by the neighbourhood, because they’re usually related to someone, so the community can’t believe they’d not do their job.  This is despite the fact that they practise work-to-rule; vote in favour of strikes; do their picket duty during strikes; and try to push their political agenda during class time.  Lack of accountability has a negative impact everywhere, so they’re as unfocused at rural schools as all the rest of the schools; otherwise the test scores would soar at rural schools.

All I am saying, is that teachers in rural schools, are not as close to the boards, the unions, or the ministry, and are not as pressured to follow the dictates of them, or feel that they have to follow every dictate that comes down their way. So, rural teachers are able to become more creative when helping students to learn. Bending the rules is another way of calling it.

On the other hand, there is problems within both the rural and urban settings. There has been many studies on the difference between urban and rural schools, as well as other studies in different fields of health, policy making, and municipality structures. Rural life is much more relaxed, where the culture is not so rule bound. Everyone knows everyone else, and the dictates from above may not have the same influences as it does on the urban population.

Here is a link from the Canadian Council on Learning, that is titled, The Rural-Urban Gap in Education.

“Rural schools tend to be smaller than urban schools and this carries a number of benefits for rural students. Class sizes tend to be smaller, students enjoy more individual attention from their teachers, and teachers often know most, if not all, of the students. There is also some evidence that small rural schools can be more effective in helping their students learn better, behave better, and participate more in civic life. Rural students express a clear awareness of and strong attachment to the benefits of attending small schools.[5]
Despite these advantages, small rural schools face challenges that can lead to unfavourable educational outcomes for their students.”

http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/LiL1March2006.htm

Nancy, what I’m interested in are the test scores:  this is the bottom line, and there don’t appear to be better test scores in Ontario’s rural schools.  The rural schools have the same mediocrity; lack of focus; very few textbooks; lously teaching methods; dreadful bullying on unsupervised playgrounds; militant unions; etc.  If the children aren’t learning any better and aren’t being looked after properly, then regardless of what this Canadian Council has found, the schools are no better.  Also, look at some of the Northern Ontario schools.  Their test scores are dismal!  What does the Canadian Council have to say about them? 
What I learned from my husband years ago:  don’t believe everything tht’s written in black and white.  Ask yourself:  what are these people’s qualifications; what is their political bend; what is the peer review on their findings; and what do you know from your own experiences—then decide if their findings are credible…
Thank you for the link, though, Nancy.

It is generally accepted that it is the completion of a program for which HS graduation is req’d. Not a program you can enter after grade 10.

Canada is first in the world and #4 in university graduation. #2 in literacy.

Canada has one of the very best education systems in the world but anything can be improved with proper funding.

At the risk of repeating myself, the mindless repetition of a few stock claims - especially when evidence to the contrary has already been advanced - accomplishes nothing.

A recent right wing policy book by the Hoover Institute outline their fantasy for the next 20 years, American Education 2030, which calls for massive privatization of education and the smashing of teacher unions. Chester Finn points out that the USA is so far behind however that, even if they do everything his way for the next 20 years they are unlikely to catch up to the world’s leading countries, Finland, Korea and wait for it - CANADA.

Even the American far right recognizes Canada as one of the world’s 2-3 leading education systems.

“Even the American far right recognizes Canada as one of the world’s 2-3 leading education systems.”

Prove it.

I think Malkin or Doretta can tell you who Chester (friends call me Checker) Finn is. There is probably no more central person to the American conservative education movement through the The Thomas Fordam Institute. The book is

American Education 2030: Hoover Institute.

These are his words. Need more proof?

Well, the American “middle-right-wing” blogosphere isn’t swooning over Canadian schooling. See:
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2009/11/canada-not-educational-mecca-weve-been.html
and
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2009/11/tale-of-two-cities.html

Also, Doug Little’s repeated assertion that Canada is first in the world in X and Y, absent any data, is more reminiscent of Goebbels remarks about repeating a big lie than anything else.

His is a faith-based assertion, and we recognize the right to freedom of religion. No need for facts to support belief systems.

“Even though we do have more uniform standards, some states believe that this is too much federal intrusion and have refused to accept them. This position is reinforced by the ongoing disputes about the specifics of standards, the level of rigor, and the like–leading some to question the wisdom of putting all the weight on a single set of national standards.

The Results
The results in 2030 are mixed. The improved accountability and use of data have improved overall test scores. Even though Finland, Hong Kong, and Canada remain ahead on international math and science tests, the gap for U.S. students has been reduced by half. Those gains represent a remarkable change relative to the stagnation that generally held between 1970 and 2010.”

The above cited passage, is in “An Evidence-Based World
Eric A. Hanushek - page 46
of the collection of essays, Education 2030.

Doug, Finland, Canada, and HongKong, are mentioned only once. It is a giant leap from what is stated in the above passage, to what you have state. ”  Chester Finn points out that the USA is so far behind however that, even if they do everything his way for the next 20 years they are unlikely to catch up to the world’s leading countries, Finland, Korea and wait for it - CANADA.”

As for Korea being mentioned, this is on page 70.
Canada, Finland is only mentioned once, which is on page 46.

Korea under - Vouchers Thrive
Herbert J. Walberg - page 70

Chester Finn, is not credited at all, as you have claimed. .

http://educationnext.org/weekend-reading-american-education-2030/

Mr. Little is just not a reliable source of information it seems. He offers that which furthers his union agenda and to heck with students or the facts. Dream on dude!

My point that Canada is second in the entire world in literact of 15 year olds is from PISA/OECD.

My point that Canada places more students in post secondary than anyone else and is #4 in university placement is from Statistics Canada.

Canada has one of the best 3 systems in the world, Chester Finn, Thomas Fordham Institute.

Everybody knows this but I am aware that it undermines some people’s most cherished ideological positions so they find it hard to accept.

There is ONE and only ONE problem in Canadian schools but it is a aspect of a similar world wide problem. The poor kids don’t do as well in school as they would under more optimal conditons. Only half of this can be mitigated by schools. The other half must come from poverty reduction.

http://www.boldapproach.org

Mr.Doug, we’ve heard and disproved these statements before.

It would be nice if you were capable of thinking and writing something different from these broken record, ideological staments.

Doug,you paint over pebbles,dirt,sand and holes-

I am in the system regularly-it is not as you paint it-AND-I meet very concerned teachers-this is not as you state it-something`s very wrong with your statements.

University profs regularly say-the education system is going down the drain-our students can`t read,write or develop a paragraph.

Progressive education-there you have it!
Educators want to do better-some of them-do you want to help them?
Or keep up the smoke and mirrors?

The positions are facts, they are not up for debate they are facts pure and simple, they have never been refuted.

University professors, having been one, are prima donnas who have been saying the same thing for 50 years, as I pointed out before, since Socrates. It means nothing. The universities are free to set a stiff entrance exam to rule out the candidates they don’t want. Then they can explain to the same complaining profs, why they don’t have a job any more.

Is the system perfect? Far from it. Is there a better system on the planet? Only one, maybe. Depends what you want. You can call it smoke and mirrors all you want.

85% just passed Grade 10 literacy test. This is a plateau it seems that frustrates Michael Fullan to no end. The 15% who consistently fail this test are composed of kids who have been in sp ed for years and very poor kids. Some meet both criteria. There is no general problem. There are a few very specific problems that governments refuse to address. Poverty is the elephant in the room that you refuse to notice.

Teacher prep is the elephant in the room that you refuse to notice-lack of explicit knowledge!

Doug, I beg to differ on your comment, “The positions are facts, they are not up for debate they are facts pure and simple, they have never been refuted.”

And further more, I object that you are putting words in Chester Finn’s mouth. He has never stated that Canada is one of the best education system. When Canada is refer by Americans, it is done in the context of Canada having a similar public education system, with similar problems.

In fact, I spend a hour or so, searching for any American declaring that the world’s best education system, is Canada or any other country. I ran across Cuba several times, but not Canada. Canada has mentioned in comparison situations but not being superior to United States. The more common comments for the most part, is that Canada does better in some areas than the United States does. There is a few articles from teachers, who do declared more concretely that Canada is a good public system, because of the strong teachers union. Obviously, these comments are one-sided and bias to say the least.

http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/Eric-Hanushek-interview.gs?content=2458

The above link, is an article that is more balance than the viewpoint of Doug. To simply declare that Canada is the best country in the world, depends on what data/information that you are cherry picking from.

Bravo Nancy!

You won the debate.

“My point that Canada is second in the entire world in literact of 15 year olds is from PISA/OECD.”

Don’t tell me Doug you’re a graduate of the school of “highest distinction”?  This one sentence pretty wells says it all.

The good folks here have trumped you…again.

The TDSB Research Department has a new study out (not on the website or released to the public yet, AFAIK) which does not support Doug’s mantra that poverty is THE issue. Of course there is a correlation between socio-economic status and academic achievement, but correlation is not causation.  In fact the causality can easily reverse: poor school achievement can lead to lower socioeconomic status.  The TDSB study looked at the demographics of the school areas and academic achievement as measured by EQAO –  not an ideal yardstick, being a holistic and subjective assessment rather than a standardized test of the usual sort, but not without applicability on a large scale. The study found that quite a few low-income schools, with very large families, mostly immigrants, had very high achievement, while many middle-class schools achieved at a significantly lower level than these “poorer” schools.

Of course most people I know are all for doing whatever we can to improve the lot of families in poverty – that is hardly the issue. Where we part company with the Dougs of this world is in thinking that low poverty, per se will magically translate into academic achievement. It doesn’t work that way.  My neighbourhood school (not in the TDSB) is in a solidly middle-income area, has*no* diversity and yet its academic standing is poor, EQAO scores lower than most of our NW TDSB schools.  Another school down the road, with similar demographics, has much better outcomes. 

Schools do differ, and the differences matter.

The TDSB Research Department has a new study out (not on the website or released to the public yet, AFAIK) which does not support Doug’s mantra that poverty is THE issue. Of course there is a correlation between socio-economic status and academic achievement, but correlation is not causation.  In fact the causality can easily reverse: poor school achievement can lead to lower socioeconomic status.  The TDSB study looked at the demographics of the school areas and academic achievement as measured by EQAO –  not an ideal yardstick, being a holistic and subjective assessment rather than a standardized test of the usual sort, but not without applicability on a large scale. The study found that quite a few low-income schools, with very large families, mostly immigrants, had very high achievement, while many middle-class schools achieved at a significantly lower level than these “poorer” schools.

Of course most people I know are all for doing whatever we can to improve the lot of families in poverty – that is hardly the issue. Where we part company with the Dougs of this world is in thinking that low poverty, per se will magically translate into academic achievement. It doesn’t work that way.  My neighbourhood school (not in the TDSB) is in a solidly middle-income area, has*no* diversity and yet its academic standing is poor, EQAO scores lower than most of our NW TDSB schools.  Another school down the road, with similar demographics, has much better outcomes. 

Schools do differ, and the differences matter.

Thanks TDSBW,
It’s what we’ve been saying all along at SQE and in this blog. 

I certainly hope the board releases this study.  It will finally stop the excuses.  Perhaps it will be part of Director Spence’s grand plan?

Correlation vs causation, not that old chestnut again. “Of course there is a correlation between poverty and achievement… There is no causation yet between lung cancer and smoking yet but the correlation is so powerful that we act as if there was one. The relationship between poverty and achievement is akin to the accumulation of sublethal toxins which at a critical point becomes lethal.

The denial that poverty is THE overwhelming reason for the achievement gap puts one in the Flat Earth Society realm of education research.

http://www.boldapproach.org

It is TDSBNW’s statement that of course there is a correlation between poverty and achievement that is the operative one.

Doug, you’ve said on earlier occaisions that you don’t do links.

When did you change your mind?

There’s also a correlation between shoe size and reading ability.

No doubt Doug will maintain that big feet make you a better reader.

The TDSB data show that poor kids can and do surpass their better-off peers in a large number of schools. If poverty were THE factor this would not be the case, and the kids in “rich” areas would be superstars, which again is not the case.

Michael Valpy (I think it was) published a book awhile back which had some interesting stats, including that kids of immigrants, almost all of whom were from low-income families, were much more likely to go to university (and graduate) than their native-born,  higher-SES confreres. I’ll see whether I can run down that stat.

Doug never mentions Cuba, either, which I noticed awhile back. Cuba ranks very high in literacy (great socialist paradise, no?) but people are quite poor, on the whole. Shouldn’t they be unable to read and write?

Poverty is just one of the many variables that impact learning and learning. Pre-natal care is such variable. The amount of lead found in soils is another. The amount of pollution in the environment. The amount of pesticide exposure is another one, and the list goes on.

Income level is a weak variable. There is far too many low-income students doing well. I agree with TDSBNW , based on my own observations since I was young, that immigrants in Canada are much more involved with their kids, and as a result, they are far more likely to go to a post-secondary institute.

I am incline and more or less agree, that poor achievement can lead to low income status as an adult. The many skills that are developed at the school level, are the same traits that are needed to be successful at any job. Learning good studying habits, setting aside time for homework and review, organization, are just a few that will help young adults to cope with the world. If the skills are not developed, the young adults will faced the harsh reality of being fired or going from one job to the next.

Almost all of the so-called “other factors” are related to poverty from low birthweight, nutrition, dental health.optical health role models, newspapers and books in the home, all of these are just subsets of poverty. You can use smoke and mirrors but you cannot escape the overwhelming poverty-achievement relationship. If only American whites and Asians are counted, the USA is equal to any western European country but throw in the blacks and hispanics and they sink to #14. Reason? Guess who is poor?  Flat Earth Society thinking to even attempt to duck the poverty-achievement analysis. It just means you are not serious.

“The relation between poverty and children’s health is widely recognized,1,2,3,4 but the mechanisms through which poverty is linked to health are still poorly understood.5,6,7 Growing up in conditions of poverty has negative effects on health, physical growth and development, and it increases the risk of death among children.8,9,10,11 Poorer health in poor children is generally explained by the parents’ low level of education and negative health behaviours12,13,14,15,16 and by the higher frequency of neonatal health problems.1,2,17,18 However, there are few data to establish whether low income alone affects infant morbidity.
Few population-based studies have examined the relation between infant health and family poverty. One study of a representative sample reported infant morbidity without analyzing the family’s socioeconomic status.19 Others focused only on the links between the mother’s characteristics and the health of the child.20,21 Studies that have considered the impact of poverty or socioeconomic status on health during the first year of life dealt more often with infant mortality than with morbidity.Several studies concerning infant morbidity have recognized the link between poverty and health, but they examined poverty or socioeconomic status as a confounding, not an explanatory, factor. Moreover, they tended not to examine overall health but, rather, looked at the most frequent health problems found among infants from poor families, such as respiratory problems,13 iron deficiency anemia,30 otitis media31 and the consequences of premature birth or low birth weight.

Population-based studies of the relation between poverty and children’s health have most often been based on data from surveys of children under 18 as a group and have not presented data specifically related to infants. Cohort studies that have analyzed socioeconomic status and children’s health have generally presented data for older children. In Canada, data from the National Longitudinal Study of Children are collected from children who were less than 12 years old at enrolment.16

The impact of poverty on infant health has yet to be determined, in particular the influence of low income compared with the influence of other indicators of socioeconomic status (e.g., parents’ level of education or absence of a partner). Because few studies have involved Canadian children specifically, almost all of the available information comes from American research. However, because of differences in access to health care services between the 2 countries and the close association between poverty and race in the United States,53 it is difficult to generalize the results of the US studies to the situation in Canada.”
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/12/1533

The health of a child, crosses all income levels. All one can say, until the studies have been conducted, no one can state that poverty causes poor health. There is a relationship, but it may be more on having access to medical services and the means to do so.

The TDSB new research, posted by TDBSNW shows the same results for the Toronto board. It is a North American problem, that is not shown in other countries, in the contrast that is shown in North America.

What about LD that does cross over all social/economic levels. One does not have to be poor to acquire LD.
“Putting a Canadian Face on Learning Disabilities demonstrates how the issues
Canadians with LD face are both linear and cyclical. They are linear, in that there is
a direct correlation between the problems not identified in school, and/or not
accommodated in school, with the end result of low literacy levels. This, in turn,
impacts the employment opportunities and the financial situations of people with
learning disabilities. The issues are cyclical, because these challenges feed into one
another. Low literacy levels, higher rates of unemployment, lack of independence,
and lower incomes contribute to higher rates of poor to fair mental and physical
health, and impact the relationships of people with LD.”
http://www.nald.ca/ldanl/ld_docs/PACFOLD Highlights.pdf

I would say, that the public education is directly impacting this group of students.

I think ducking the issues, is a trait that Doug has. Ducking issues, without providing the evidence that it is only poverty that affects achievement rates. All one can say, is that income has been associated with better achievement in school. What one cannot say what are the factors that will determine achievement outcomes. Until that is throughly studied, by the researchers - the educators should stick to and determine what are the factors that impact achievement rates. I believe the top two factors are teacher quality and curriculum. The third factor is the school’s physical environment, but than again until it is studied, the physical environment could be down a long way on the list.

Nobody has ever said that it is ONLY poverty that effects achievement. It is OVERWHELMINGLY poverty that effects achievement rates. How do we count the LD child of middle class parents? Well, of course they count against the trend but they are a tiny minority of those with achievement problems. The province bases its LOG grants on the basis of poverty. Boards like the TDSB allocate their staff on the basis of SES.

Yes some temporarily poor immigrants come here and do well but they were business or professional people where they came from with either professional education and training or business experience.

Excuse me, Mr. Little - but I see your ‘Dougma’ continues - you just can’t admit that you’re wrong.  I related to you my experience some time back and it still hasn’t sunk in.

My parents were immigrants.  Their friends were immigrants.  We were not from professional education or background.  My ancestors were either farmers or tradespeople.  My father was a tradesman - his whole life - it wasn’t a ‘temporary’ poverty.

I am not stupid.  I can read.  In fact, I have three university degrees and am working on a fourth.  To a person, all of the first generation friends I grew up with have all done well.  NONE (note that Doug - none) of our families were professionals either in the homeland, or here.  Get it? - none.

It’s interesting that you continue to spew these wild, unfounded theories without ever letting real facts get in your way.

Oh please Wayne get with it. It is hardly me. Here are the experts who agree with me as opposed to your worthless anecdotal story.

http://www.boldapproach.org

Wayne, you might want to look beyond your own family. The success of Chileans as opposed to other Latin Americans in Canada is directly related to what they did in Chile before the Allende overthrow, teachers, profs, journalists etc. From central America the refugees have been largly peasants who were illiterate. The same situation has been duplicated with many groups over and over again.

BTW Wayne, name calling and attempting to belittle people is frowned upon here. You might want to tone it down a little or they will delete your posts.

Name calling?  That’s another message for us Neanderthals and the Flat Earthers?  Wow, Doug, you’re worse than ever.

Please try to include real facts in your posts, not the same tired, worthless propaganda.

Bold Approach?  You mean the Nothing Approach - as in nothing new for Ontario - we already have most of it in place.  If you’re going to include links, at least make them to something relevant.  I told you months ago that there is nothing there for us, yet here you are going on about it.  Oh, and the vaunted experts you keep harping on about - Bold Approach?  Try Janet Reno - nice lady, very progressive - but the last time I checked she was Attorney General during the Clinton years - not really an expert in education.  There she is, one of the main signatories to the Bold Approach.

Wayne, serious people don’t deny the overwhelming worldwide research that connects achievement directly to SES. In Canada we still have what John Porter called “A Vertical Mosaic” where some ethnic/racialized communities are heavily skewed towards poverty (blacks, Aboriginals, Latin Americans…) while others through their efforts and/or history or the fact that their immigration group represents a particular slice of the former society. For example Hong Kong is not representitive of China, Chile is not representitive of Latin America, southern Italians were not representitive of Italians in general in 1960, people from the Azores Islands are not representitive of the Portuguese mainland, etc. You need to look into some of this from an academic POV and not react so anecdotally from your families experience. There are strong overlays of race and ethnicity to achievement in education but if you apply a SES matrix it clears up pretty quickly.

So now, I’m not serious?  Well at least you gave up on that silly Bold Approach.  Did I say that SES was not a factor?  No.  Your assertion is that it is the only factor.  Your ‘research’ is based mainly on American studies. You may not have noticed, but south of the border, they are really hung up on race.  It’s not so big an issue up here.  While you’re at it, stop jumping to conclusions.  Although I did say that our family friends were all immigrants, I didn’t say we were all from the same ethnic group.  Immigrants in small town Ontario stuck together, no matter what their background.

Nancy is one of the most serious people on this site.  She has already refuted much of what you’re saying.  Try to keep up, Doug.

Nancy has not refuted a single thing. I took the EQAO data by SES to the Toronto Star because it was an absolute relationship between SES and poverty in the school. They were so impressed they ran it as a front page story with a full page devoted to it inside. Recently even the Toronto Sun devoted a front page story to the fact that EQAO results are almost 100% SES based. You really don’t know what you are talking about Wayne. The case for SES and achievement has been proven over and over across the globe INCLUDING Canada. Do a little research please.

EQAO results are almost 100% SES based.

Doug, you cannot state that in these terms. All you can say is that there is a strong relationship, between SES and achievement rates. What is not known is a deep understanding that is influencing the SES. You cannot state 100 % , because any school across Ontario, will have at least 60 % making a pass. So what are the factors that are different between students who are passing, and students who are failing. What are the most common factors between the two groups, and the separate groups. What are the differences on the reading and writing portion. What are the problems that the students who are failing, are experiencing.
Many more question, before anyone can state 100 %.

The marking of the EQAO testing, is quite subjective. More so, if being asked for opinion. Kids can become quite creative, but to an adult it is hogwash, but not to the kid. As a result, even if it was prefect, it may be marked as not answering the question. Prior knowledge and background information is also of importance. The sample test that I read this morning, on a bridge in Italy, is the kind of story that one would need to make a connection with something here in North America.

Doug, you are looking at the numbers, not what is behind the numbers. The numbers are simply numbers. In order to make connections, one needs to look at the raw results, The hard copies of the tests. Most parents when they get the results, are numbers. Number one question of parents to other parents, the number are meaningless to them because they do not have a hard copy of the test to make the connections. It is the same thing, when the scores on an assessment report. The numbers are meaningless, until a parent takes it upon themselves to learn what the numbers are, so they can make the connections. And that is no easy task to do, But at least there is about 60 years of data that a score within a certain range, will tell you something. The trouble with criterion reference testing, or other standard testing conducted by the education ministry, is that they do not have quality data going back years. As far as I know, there is no field testing either and it the formulation of questions, and format are done in-house. There is no way of measuring the influences that may play heavily with the questions on the test. What type of biases?

Doug, I too have lived with immigrants all my life. What I have observed are the assumptions made on immigrants, by the professionals. It is a two-way street. The media does not help much, where the stories are slanted, showing only one side of an issue. Sometimes you see the hidden biases of the writer, the political stabs, and little balance.

Doug, you have not made your case. It is time to take the numbers you present, and prove it. As far as I know, the researchers are far from proving it. But on the education front, the researchers have over 60 years of data, research to prove without a doubt what is effective instruction, curriculum and what works. Balanced literacy is not on their menu.

Research over decades in many countries including Canada makes it an absolute lock between SES and achievement. Denial makes one look as if they have their fingers in their ears saying “I can’t hear you.” The reasons are complex, the connection is not really in contention.

Where is the research Doug?  The study of SES and achievement has only been around for the last 20 years or so. There is few studies studying the underlying factors. Even in health studies, there is no defining factors that directly relate to poor health outcomes.

The connections are in dispute, because there is no hard data on the failures. Too many subjective interpretation of the data, that makes policy formation very difficult to undertake. Of course, it appears to be more so in our public education system, and far less in our economic policies. In the field of health, at least they look at people on all facets to determine outcomes.

Start proving it Doug, on the studies,  that shows the lock between SES and achievement rates. There is a connection, but not a lock. Even now in the United States, there are questioning the connection, and are now looking at teaching quality and curriculum. All kinds of articles like that in the last month or so, on all sides calling for changes.

Here is another article from Education Week.
Something to think about, how the local schools can improve achievement, drop-out rate, etc if they had all the data at their fingertips. It does not require an increase in teachers either.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34overview.h29.html?tkn=QYPFz/Z5Yu37+r9PwOjRJN50m977IP90eyES&cmp=clp-edweek

“GM can’t make cars anymore just on good feelings, and we can’t continue to educate kids the same way,” says Wise, a former Democratic governor of West Virginia. “Every decision needs to have data showing why it works and helping teachers inform their decisions with data that helps improve student learning.”

Individual teachers often have information that is crucial to understanding what’s happening with a student, but in the absence of a data system, it doesn’t get shared, he says.

“If it is not in a comprehensive data system that someone is monitoring on a regular basis, all of that tends to slip through the cracks,” Wise says. “That’s why data is important. It can immediately capture what is happening in a student’s life and sound the warning so you can intervene.”

Making sure usable data ends up in the hands of those who need it the most—those in the classroom—is a constant challenge, says Johnson of Minneapolis.

“We have to get the right type of information to teachers about interventions and strategies,” she says. “We do push out a lot of data. The challenge is it being the right data that informs instruction.”

EQAO results are almost 100% SES based.

Even if they were once, they are not now. The latest TDSB study showed a significant number of schools in the lowest tercile outperformed a number of schools in the first and most in the second tercile.

You find even more variation from the SES “lock” when you look at performance of individuals, not groups.

Doug’s weltanshauung doesn’t allow for instructional factors, which is one of several “elephants in the room” where education of at-risk kids is concerned.

Sure,because they are based on the myth that Reading happens naturally-the flawed hypothesis.When research based instruction is delivered to children by a trained teacher they learn to read,spell and write as well as anyone else.

How can this myth continue to be propagated?

Education`s lack of accountability for the children they serve is the elephant in the room.

If the teacher is too tired she doesn`t need to do x…

If she is not trained-she doesn`t need to do x-

If the principal or Supt asks for a certain program to be delivered…she doesn`t want to..

Union based mentality and too much teacher power-without excellent training=failure

Yes TDSBNW Cuba does score very well in fact some would say it is the Finland of the 3rd world. This is because Castro instituted a massive adult literacy campaign just after he took power and invests far more in health and education than almost any 3rd world nation. He is a net exporter of medical talent which he trades with Chavez for oil. I would say he proves my case. The way to overcome poverty deficits is by massive education spending. Yes, the gap can be closed.

On TDSB data I will await the data. Have you ever heard the phrase, “the exceptions prove the rule?” Unless the poor overall do as well as the middle class with all students considered then I am correct. Research over decades and across the world demonstrates that no other factor compares to SES when measuring achievement.

It’s very clear to me that Mr. Little has lost this debate. We should be very glad indeed that he is no longer in a classroom and that his philosophy isn’t mirrored in many, many educators…as Wayne demonstrates in his posts.

Wayne - if more teachers came out and spoke up like you have you would find the tide of support from parents and community swinging your way. The more Mr. Little posts the more it proves just how disconnected the old lines and bully tactics are.

Chuck,

I missed the meeting when you became the referee. Oh, I think my philosophy lingers on a majoriterian thinking across the education community.

The vast majority of Ontario parents and citizens are very much in support of their teachers because the vast majority of students do very well, even Chuck’s son.

The only people in the malcontent camp are people with a political axe to grind against one of the world’s greatest education systems. Of course it can be improved, anything can be improved but point to a better system other than Finland, and the difference is marginal.

No gamesmanship required Mr. Little the good people here have trumped you.

You’ll do well to re-read my posts because the reason my son did well by the system was through the teachers who ignored the politics and whole language to do it their way.

You see Mr. Little those teachers really had the welfare and education in mind and it worked. Many others do the same despite the antiquated notions and mindset of all for one.

Chuck,

I do believe what you have read the mood of the public much more clearly than ‘he who must be obeyed’  would admit.  As well, many teachers are extremely frustrated with the feeling of being caught up in the middle.

We are told by our employers to, essentially, ‘shut up, go away - we know what is best for students, just keep making it easier’.  We are told by our union to, essentially, ‘shut up, go away, we know how best fight this battle, do nothing.’  The heady days of union militancy are but a gleam in someone’s eye.  Today’s union is nothing more than a toothless tiger - more bark than bite.

Unfortunately, most teachers are not going to stand up for too much any more - they are just steering their way to a quiet retirement.

Chuck, there is only one point, your son got an excellent education in the Ontario public system, end of story.

Wayne, maybe you missed the first wave of militancy created by Harris and Snobelen but the tiger only appears to be sleeping. Wait till you see what happens if a Hudak government, perish the thought, ever gets elected and attempt a Harris style, destroy and privatize the public system agenda.

Doug, you better start checking out news stories of late, on particular the teachers’ unions. Teachers’ unions are not as strong as you think they are. The next pay raise will come with accountability. Now my question would be, if accountability became a reality, would the next demands from the union brass be get rid of progressive education, balance literacy, and start to demand curriculum, and reading programs that are effective for the majority of the classroom?

Where did you get the accountability nonsense the USA? Teachers here are already highly accountable.

Accountability and professionalism are like a teeter totter. If one goes up the other goes down. More accountability means outsiders trying to tell professionals how to teach and like Texas OMG what to teach. Professionalism means the outsiders stay out and the profession and the individual teachers make the important decisions.

The hugely successful Finland model is based on the following.

Control the profession right at the tap. Only the best get in. This group becomes highly trained and educated. Now-leave them alone and let them get on with it without every busy body having too much to say.

Yes, Doug, I was there. And if you call that pot of hot air ‘militancy’, I see why teachers like myself have been thrown in front of the bus by the union when we have tried to speak out.

Some of us have been working in the system to try to bring about change - we aren’t waiting until after retirement.

Wayne, I’m not sure all of your collegues or the system wants the kind of reform that you advocate. If it involves simply raising standards any idiot can do that the question is, are they the optimum standards for the whole society.

With regards to the union, I think every member realizes that everything that is decent about this job came from the union. If the union disappeared tomorrow, you would all be very quickly working longer hours for less money with fewer benefits and looking forward to a longer wait for a lower pension, hence the loyalty of the teachers to the union.

Harris tried to destroy the job and the union. Luckily we live in a democracy so he was ultimately stopped but not before he did a lot of damage and removed $2 billion from the system. He wanted teachers to teach more and he wanted to privatize the system hence the private school tx credit. One step on the road to total privatization. That is why these reforms must be fought tooth and nail and never one inch granted.

if accountability became a reality,....

Teachers (in my area, anyway) are highly accountable right NOW.  They are accountable for drawing up long-term and short-term plans (in grade teams) that identify the exact Ministry emphases required by the Secretariat, including how they will “differentiate” for all the different levels in the class, list the resources (most of which they are expected to create on their own), file an annual learning plan that identifies exact areas in which they will undertake professional learning (on their own time and dime of course) and these several areas have to be aligned with the School Improvement Plan (developed by administrators higher up the food chain); they have Performance Appraisals that evaluate how well they are implementing Balanced Literacy and “higher level thinking” and “differentiation” and whether they have a “print-rich” environment, whether students are writing a lot every day, whether they are keeping up their data walls and anchor charts, they have to submit their rubrics, do moderated marking in grade teams, write student improvement plans for all students below Level 3, write comment banks for the report card to be checked by admins every report period, keep student work portfolios and behaviour logs and records of Functional Behaviour Assessments for as many as 6 kids in one class, do IEPs plus all the consultation and paperwork that involves for as many as 10-15 students in a regular grade class, attend grade team meetings, division meetings, staff meetings, literacy meetings,  school improvement meetings (all before or after school—many years there has been a meeting every single day), schedule meetings with every parent for the first report card, make phone calls to parents on their own cell phones, since in some schools there is no phone available for staff to use, fill out many referrals—to the School Support Team, to the CCAC, to Speech and Language, Psychological Services, IPRCs, letters to medical professionals, detailed daily observational logs on a number of students, and, oh yes, write their own curriculum, because textbooks are “inauthentic.”

The suggestion that teachers can refuse to do what the principal or superintendent orders is absurd. Too tired to teach? Go home and take sick leave. Not trained in the program (the TDSB does not believe in programs, so this is not an issue here)? Do it yourself over the summer. Don’t like it? Tough {bleep}.  Teachers have to do what their superiors require, in curriculum, in duty schedules, in supervision, in reporting and planning, and in many other areas. The union has no place in any of this, unless the administration grossly abuses the collective agreement—for instance, requiring teachers to give up their lunch hours every day to work in the office, or to come to the school on weekends to do extra work, or to have sex with the principal to get a satisfactory appraisal (this is still going on). 

Where we do NOT have accountability: School administration is not accountable to teachers, to parents, or to the public, and supervision of school administration is very weak.  Superintendents and directors are rarely held accountable for gross mismanagement, dereliction of duty, laziness, financial irregularities, or incompetence. Ministry and Board curriculum people are not held responsible for developing research-based materials or for the results of whatever fad they introduce. Ministry staff are not accountable to anyone outside the BLOB. It is not the job of teachers’ unions to lobby for effective curricula—for heavens sake, that’s what those highly-paid bureaucrats are supposed to be doing. If parents or others don’t like what is being taught, they have to change the TOP. Whining about lazy teachers is not going to address the curriculum issues. You want spelling, math facts and algorithms, decoding skills, grammar, cursive writing, better LD services? They have to be required by the curriculum and the Ministry. Right now, they are not.

There’s lot’s of “unaccountability” but it’s higher up the ladder. Addressing it is a POLITICAL problem. This behemoth that is so unresponsive was created by politicians. The current hegemony is a product of the Harris government, paradoxically enough. The guys who ran on an anti-big-government platform proceeded to amalgamate and consolidate power in a breathtaking way. Now that the MOE runs the show, and some Boards are so big their budgets rival that of many nations, they are no longer accountable to the voters or to local citizens. Unfortunately, like the income tax—which was originally billed as a “temporary measure”—now that the balance of power is destroyed, and the MOE-Boards cartel has all the power, they are NOT going to surrender it without a huge fight—a fight that does not appear to be in the making.

So Nancy, after TDSBNWs post, are teachers accountable? P-L-E-A-S-E.

Time to give accountability a rest.

Doug, accountability to the students. What TSSBNW states is true. The students who fail to thrive in this progressive education system, that is filled with feel good feelings, become the exceptions in the system. They become the political pawns of unions, teacher colleges, the boards, and the departments of education.

Quite frankly, these children are being used as guinea pigs for whatever are the latest fads, and no one is held accountable for their poor reading, writing and basic numeracy skills. These children are excuse for not having the same abilities as the normal student population or blamed for dragging down achievement or blamed for the rising costs of education.

The front-lined teachers are taking the burden of being accountable to the higher levels, and this includes the union demands. The union brass is just as bad as the other parts of the education arms, where it is just as politicized as the new MS treatment is, in the health field. What the teachers’ union fails to do, is to bring full autonomy of teaching, curriculum to the front-line teachers. Instead, a pay raise, is associated with cooperation of the goals of the boards and ministries. Teachers do a lot of busy work for their masters, being micro-managed but are not provided with the right type of resources and materials for their students. Than the teachers are asked to create their own material, in keeping with the goals of the school, the board, and the ministry of education. Than they are expected to know the individual student learning style, and how it relates to the current goals of the different levels, and applied the approved methods.

It is here that some students who are struggling, get caught up in the nightmare of the so-called approved methods. Than the parents are snagged into a web of indoctrination of the goals of the education system.  Next thing you know, we have a group of parents hopping on one foot, to illustrate addition. Another group of parents, will be working with their children at home, to come up with the most novel way of adding 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 X 2 = 4.  Meanwhile, another set, (and by the way, I read an Ontario education document, describing SE children, as subsets of the normal student population), which I will now call the subset parents, who are doing their kid’s homework for them, in the best forgery possible.  The subset parents are likely to show their children, non-approved methods, and one of the goals in today’s education systems, is that this should be discouraged. The reason being, the parents will not throw a wrench in the carefully throughout plans of the highly paid staff at the board, and higher levels.

As TDSBNW states, “now that the balance of power is destroyed, and the MOE-Boards cartel has all the power, they are NOT going to surrender it without a huge fight—a fight that does not appear to be in the making.” He is absolutely correct, and who would not want to hold that kind of power over a large captive group in today’s society. What is that saying, Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And where you find this operating, you will find accountability are fuzzy and weak.

Doug, the union brass plays the game very well, and has become a willing partner to play the political card, at every opportunity, even on the backs of children. The latest example is going after Harris, and his honorary diploma.

What’s stunning for me is how flippant the union man is when confronted by educators here.

I truly feel sorry for teachers who are caught in the middle and have their voices silenced by political hacks on all sides.

Every time Mr. Little posts a response it’s more proof that not just parents but individual teachers deserve more of a choice where education of children is concerned.

If the unions not doing their job then their members need to band together and send a strong message because unless they do they’ll be stuck for a long time coming.

I wonder what would help TDSBNW-

Your post is most appreciated and we all need to think about it very hard-and I know from being around the edges in my presentations that what you say is true-every word.

I do know though as well that many teachers are not like you-responsible and observing all the curriculum that is not effective(more like injurious)-it does not bother them-perhaps they are more “union employee” personality-but so many like you are philosophically tortured implementing recommendations that are failing children.You are in an impossible situation.

Doug could be an ally-fighting the MOE for research based instruction and results for every child through their teachers.Doug,it`s the out of the gate curriculum-K-3 that NEEDS to change-it creates incredible harm to boys,low SES,LD.Creates fuzzy readers and fuzzy spellers-partial decoders and by grade 5-the crash begins-then we have mental health issues-anxiety ,school avoidance and low self esteem.Only 40% of students will truly learn to read and spell with your Ministry`s curriculum.That`s the research!

Doug,

As I have said on numerous occasions, as well as in the posts above (if you were to bother to actually read them) most of my colleagues do not agree with me.  Like you, they would just rather collect a fat paycheque and quietly roll into retirement to collect a fat retirement cheque - oh yeah, and do supply work.

Most are quiet little sheep who do what their employer tells them to do - after all they run the system, they must be right.  Most don’t bother to think or question.  A few of my colleagues and I have stood up to the status quo.  Soon I too will go into retirement - just not quietly.

Come down off the cross Wayne, you are hardly the only person around who cares about education. They, and many others just don’t agree with you prescriptons because they are wrong.

Chuck, I think you can leave the union business to the teachers, they are all well educated grownups. They are totally internally democratic and the result is the present leadership.

It just might be that they are the leaders because they represent what teachers want.

Doug-you fight the Reading War like all whole language zealots!It`s proven-You`re wrong-

Don`t teach properly=60% of the class not learning.Show the page and pictures instead of oral segmentation of phonemes then phoneme grapheme connection then blend-then segment-=read and spell-90% success-they are invested in their opinions…and the tax payers are paying them for it.
And another thing-there are a lot of frustrated Superintendents who are questioning MOE path to failure -a 25 million dollars a year Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat!
If you follow the wrong route on the map-you do not get where you need to go!

Where is the accountability?
As TDSBNW states it`s there-making sure they don`t teach properly.

Dr.Reid Lyon-“phonemic awareness is the greatest breakthrough in Reading Research of the 21st century”!

“Oh him-that`s his opinion.”.they must say.

Mr. LIttle, insulting Mr. Ng wasn’t the right thing to do.  The children are fortunate to have a man with his has integrity teaching them. 
Also, Mr. Little, Chuck is right.  Teachers’ unions are taxpayers business.  We pay the bills, and the public school system is our system, and we want to see our children getting the best, which they’re not, largely thanks to the unions.

Chuck is talking about internal teacher matters. Nobody’s business except teachers.

No, Mr. Little, it is our business.  It’s always the employers’s business.

The internal organization and politics of the unions as private self financing organizations are the business of the members only. Internal dissidents have been to the Supreme Court to challenge this. They lost.

I believe Doug is talking about refusing to pay membership dues. Here is a link about such cases in Ontario and other parts of Canada.

“Teachers sometimes object to membership in a teacher union or to paying dues to the union based on freedom of association or freedom of religion, both guaranteed in the Constitution Act, 1982.  Canadian courts have generally been more sympathetic to the freedom of religion issue.  Membership problems may also occur when teachers refuse to participate in legal or illegal work stoppages and the union takes disciplinary action. 
In an Ontario case involving an instructor at a college of applied arts and technology (“Lavigne . . .”), the instructor, who was not a member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) but was required to pay dues to OPSEU based on the Rand formula, objected to several of the uses of his dues by the union.  He objected to financial contributions by OPSEU to a political party and to its financial support for various political causes that he personally disliked, and he argued that his money should be used strictly for matters related to collective bargaining.  Lavigne took the union to court and won at the trial level but finally lost at the Supreme Court of Canada.  This court was unanimous in its decision but badly divided in its reasons.  The seven justices who heard the case did agree that the Constitution Act, 1982 applied but could not agree on whether freedom of association was actually an issue in the case or whether freedom of association carries with it the guarantee of freedom not to associate. 
In a case from the Vancouver area (“Wasilifsky . . .”), the British Columbia Industrial Relations Council considered the application of a husband and wife who sought to be exempted from compulsory membership and payment of dues in an affiliate of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation on religious grounds.  They objected to the Federation’s position supporting the right to abortion.  The Council exempted them from membership but refused to exempt them from paying fees on the grounds that there was no evidence that the Federation had used any of its funds to further their pro-abortion policy. 
A Newfoundland case in which religion was also an issue involved a teacher who was suspended from the Newfoundland Teachers’ Association for one year for refusing to participate in an association approved withdrawal of selective services (“Andrews . . .”). He chose not to participate because it violated the tenets of his religious faith and those of the Pentecostal school system for which he worked.  The Newfoundland Teachers’ Association determined that this refusal constituted “unprofessional conduct” and “misconduct” as these terms were used in the Newfoundland Teachers’ Association Act and suspended the teacher for these reasons.  Upon reviewing the case, the Newfoundland District Court determined that the unprofessional conduct and misconduct provisions of the Act, although not penal in nature, involved serious penalties and had to be construed specifically.  All the offences listed in the act were ones that could bring the teaching profession into disrepute and it was not clear that strikebreaking was such an offence.  The court reasoned that had the legislature intended strikebreaking to be included in the list of offences, it would have included it explicitly.  The court reversed the teacher’s suspension on these grounds and declined to deal with the issues of religious freedom and discrimination.  “
http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact22.html#

This is no big deal, as Doug makes it out to be. Other unions have been taken to task as well. But unions that are part of the public service, are perceived as being funded by the taxpayer’s dollar. I am predicting in the next 10 years,  unions that produced no tangible products such as making a widget, and are financed by the taxpayers dollars, will be in a rough ride, no matter who is in government.

legal vs right Mr. Little?  hmmm I think it’s happened before.  Besides, your huge powerful teachers’ unions wouldn’t make a dime without the cash which comes indirectly from taxpayers.
I’m well aware that the tail is wagging the dog, but as much as you try to pretend that it’s right, we all know that it isn’t.  The people paying the bills should always be in control.

Outsiders have no right to intrude in internal union matters. Nancy has actually done an excellent job on the case law in Canada.

In fact the health workers of BC just won a landmark case that would make Bob Rae’s social contract illegal if it were attempted today. The court ruled that the BC government cannot pass laws that break the unions contract

Doug, you have conveniently forgotten that even companies, including the government, must negotiate with the union, if changes are made on the management side, that impact labour. This is done usually at renewal of contracts.

Again I will repeat, that public service unions are going to be in for a rough ride. It is not if, it is a manner of when.

“Outsiders have no right to intrude in internal union matters”

And your unions sir have no right to interfere with the education of children. When that happens it’s very much our business to advocate for the right of the child and his/her education.

It would seem that the folks at Nipissing don’t want the unions messing with the students either.

That was a huge loss for the bluster of the OTF.

Chuck’s initial post was around the gross “Highest Distinction” numbers graduating from education at the UOIT. Some one needs to take a closer look at the plumbing up of teachers grads. If this is going on in every education faculty it’s absurd.

I do believe that the way in which Mr. Little treats Mr. Ng just shows on a mirco scale what must be happening on a much larger scale to so many educators who deserve a voice but are put down by bullies.

Not much else to add to this post. Mr. Little has done his best to try to divert the discussion. He has not succeed.

Dr.Reid Lyon-“phonemic awareness is the greatest breakthrough in Reading Research of the 21st century”!,

Doug’s beloved Finland puts a great deal of emphasis on teaching phoneme awareness and phonological processing skills in preschool, so that when children are 7 they have a good language foundation for quickly mastering the sound-symbol correspondences. Reading is taught explicitly, sequentially and through rapid covering of the phonetic code with the skill of blending for reading and segmenting for spelling. Math is also taught directly and explicitly (facts, operations). They have primers that students must work through in the first years, and direct teaching of several different subject areas.

By doing these things in an efficient manner, the FInnish schools also have plenty of time for project-based learning and exploration of topics of interest. They provide nearly 25% of their students with special education support to ensure they master the basics.

My observation is that many teachers here don’t see the problems with the current curriculum because they have never known anything better.  When they see how fast children can learn given the right instruction, they have a Road to Damascus experience. Unfortunately, many never have an opportunity to see this.  The teacher population now is skewed towards teachers with less than 15 years experience, so all they have known is the fuzzy curriculum.  Some boards in the early 90’s and before had pretty good curricula (others not), and effective LD and reading programs, but those who had it have now lost it.

Back at Chuck’s original point, about the students who all graduated with High Distinction—undergraduate programs in Education are the exception rather than the rule in Ontario (thankfully).
Most teachers here have an undergraduate degree (with high marks) from a recognized university in a specific discipline. Some have advanced degrees. The B.Ed they get at the Faculty of Education is an additional degree.

In the USA, the data consistently show that students earning an undergraduate degree in education are generally from the bottom of the ability and achievement heap. They score low on the SAT and were often in the bottom third of their secondary school graduating class.  That’s sobering enough, but even more cause for concern is that students going to graduate school in educational administration—the future principals, superintendents and CEO’s—have the lowest mean GRE verbal scores of any occupational group except daycare workers.  They score significantly lower than their teachers.  We don’t use the GRE here for most graduate programs, so we don’t have corresponding data, but it is a disturbing thought that those running the show may be significantly less competent academically than their employees.

In general the standards here are much higher than in the USA, but Chuck’s anecdote does give one food for sober second thoughts. No way ALL of those graduates were “distinguished.”

Until the day teachers are finally paid what they are worth they will always have trouble recruiting top grads. That is why I advocate Finland system.

sounds like a perfect case to introduce merit pay for those exceptional teachers we know exist but who get marginalized by their unions.

Teachers who make excuses for children and their lot in life rather than giving them hope through competence in their future will end up “with distinction” when none is earned.

Quality and high pay need to be earned and proven.

I’m pretty sure the profs. at UOIT are paid well to hand out blanket “highest distinctions” to any and all who apply.

TDSBNW - you sure are wise and understanding of where the shortfalls are. Too bad Mr. Little doesn’t want to listen to you. Too bad really because you’re paying plenty in dues to get the lip-service your union membership affords you when it comes to actually supporting programs that you know work.

Merit pay is intuitively appealing, but it has little evidence of effectiveness in elementary settings, at least. I can’t cite the stats off the top of my head (could look them up, but am not highly motivated to spend my time doing that).  Merit pay works in some types of workplace, especially ones where individuals have a lot of personal “space” to innovate, develop new procedures, increase productivity, and so on. However, where results depend upon people working together in a very close team, singling out one or another individual as “meritorious” and others not is a not-too-subtle slap in the face to others on the team, who may share equal responsibility for the meritorious one’s success.

Some factors to consider: surveys of teachers in several large USA districts found that secondary teachers, and male teachers (who are a minority in the elementary grades) were motivated by pay factors.  They reported that they would be willing to change schools or jobs for higher pay, and would welcome bonuses or incentive plans.  Female teachers put pay well down the list of their top priorities (4th place, overall).  They rated working conditions, collegiality and geographic factors as far more important than pay and few reported they would be willing to change schools or jobs for more money.  Since money is not usually a top motivator for elementary teachers, it’s not going to “reward” the outstanding ones.

Another problem: a pay bonus just adds to your taxable income. What if you do get a bonus of $5 000? At least half of it is likely to be taxed away.  It may put you into a higher tax bracket and actually result in a net loss, thereby penalizing the person you’re trying to reward..

Two alternatives (one with proven track record) strike me as a better idea than “merit pay.”  One is giving bonuses to a team of people in the school – say, the primary team or the junior grade team, for excellent results.  This would include educational assistants and others who played a major role.  Would some recipients possibly be less deserving of the “reward” than others? Yes, probably, but the integrity of the team would be preserved, people working together effectively to serve children would be recognized for their collective accomplishment, which outweighs that of any one person.

A variation on this, also reported to have been successful (Florida maybe? I would have to check my facts) is rewarding the staff of a whole school that shows significant improvement. This includes non-teaching staff like caretakers and office staff.  Every effective school I know of has a staff that really work together, so this option has a great deal to recommend it. 

If individual teachers must be rewarded as individuals, let it be with an expense allowance that the teacher can use – not personal income, but money to be spent on the kids and materials or programs to benefit them. However, the attraction for the teacher would be that s/he gets to decide what to spend it on, and administration gets no say except veto power if the items requested are clearly frivolous or deleterious.

This rewards those who are doing the most for kids, in a way that helps them do more, and doesn’t penalize them financially by increasing their taxable income. Furthermore, most of the ways they might spend the money would benefit other teachers and students, and this would obviate jealousy and ill-will.

The usual “merit pay” schemes however would likely do more harm than good.  Exceptionally good teachers are rarely “marginalised” by their colleagues, they are valued and appreciated. Not always, but usually.

>>My observation is that many teachers here don’t see the problems with the current curriculum because they have never known anything better.  When they see how fast children can learn given the right instruction, they have a Road to Damascus experience. Unfortunately, many never have an opportunity to see this.  The teacher population now is skewed towards teachers with less than 15 years experience, so all they have known is the fuzzy curriculum.  <<

Exactly! Most of the younger teachers have only been exposed to “progressive” education themselves.
As a consequence they don’t even understand what it means to sequence learning from simple to complex or to teach and give feedback until a skill is fully mastered.
They simply have no clue. They think that if they have mentioned something once, the children would remember and if not, it’s the student’s fault.
They assign homework that is unstructured and beyond the ability of most students to do it by themselves, without help.
They don’t seem to wonder how come the homework gets done.

It is not necessarily their fault. If you are young and you go to get your B.Ed. and that’s what you are told to do, that’s what you would mostly believe ... for a while anyway ...
Also, if that’s what you are asked to do and your job, your living is on the line, that’s what you would do most of the time.

But, seriously, from an intellectual point of view and from an ethical point of view, knowing that your job is to teach - that’s what you are paid for - , to see with your own eyes every day that a lot of your students don’t learn to much and not to question what’s going on ... excuse me .. you are either pretty dumb or you don’t care as long as you get paid.

My point is that, ok the bureaucracy may impose stupid curriculum and methods and police their implementation.
However, I haven’t met many teachers that have a clue, that question whether what they are asked to do may be inept.
How can a supposedly educated - 4 but generally at least 5 year after high school - and smart person think that it’s ok not to teach long-division for example and expect students 8-9-10 years old to “discover” their own algorithms?

Sorry, the only explanation for the above is that the B.Ed. program admits either fairly mediocre students that don’t have other well paying options or yes people. And then the B.Ed. program brain-washes them.

Most teachers teach the way the board/ministry tells them to teach. They recognize the pecking order and that this is lrgely the prerogative of the higher ups. The federations give the ministry their opinions but do not really fight for or against ministry policy except in the way TDSBNW pointed out, it is becoming impossible to meet all of the overlaping, and often conflicting guidelines. Not enough hours in the day to meet ministry-board accountability directives.

But, seriously, from an intellectual point of view and from an ethical point of view, knowing that your job is to teach - that’s what you are paid for - , to see with your own eyes every day that a lot of your students don’t learn to much and not to question what’s going on ... excuse me .. you are either pretty dumb or you don’t care as long as you get paid.

Teaching is only part of the job, according to the Education Act and to the contracts teachers sign when they are hired. Many other duties are specified (supervision of students, assessment and reporting and obeying superiors being among the most important).

I don’t think your statement accurately reflects reality. It’s not true that “most students don’t learn very much.”  They learn much less than they could, since we know so much more than we did even 25 years ago about how to accelerate learning, but most students do learn, and show evidence of that learning on a consistent basis.

Nor is it my observation that teachers “don’t question what’s going on.”  Most of my colleagues certainly do, and express strong disagreement with policy, curricula and methodology, but we are not at liberty to criticize these things publicly in any detail.  The Education Act requires teachers to be “loyal” to the Board and the Ministry of Education.  That means criticism must be muted and in-house, no washing dirty laundry in public.

I for one would be happy to see the law changed. I don’t hear the Doug Little Song in these parts, I hear that the system is seriously flawed, even broken, and that kids and the public are not being as well served as they should be. However the MOE is much more controlling (and disciplinary) than it was in the past. Teachers must watch what they say and to whom.

That’s probably why you haven’t heard what I hear on a regular basis. It’s certainly not true that many or most care mostly about the paycheck.  There are some that do, and they go into administration,  or quit for more lucrative careers (some recent examples: colleagues who have quit to become dentists, financial service managers, accountants, operators of music or Tae Kwon Do academies, free-lance human resources consultants, etc .)

TDSBNW, I stand by my opinion: “a lot of our students don’t learn a lot”.

Sorry, if students are not learning how to read well, how to write with correct spelling, correct sentence structure and with inteligible handwriting and if students are not learning how to add, subtract, divide and multiply any types of numbers correctly then, to me, they don’t learn much.

Most of them know much less than any child of my generation knew at their age.

And they won’t be able to learn much in the future, let aside do “creative”, “higher-order” .. .whatever type of work.

In the future, today’s students would need to bring in the dimensions of their bathroom to Home Depot because they won’t be sure they can figure out on their own how many tiles they need. They would need an “expert”.

They would need to go to a financial planner to understand their investments because they don’t feel at ease calculating percentages in a real life situation and they need a mortgage advisor because otherwise they don’t get how because of composing interest a $50 payment increase can save them a lot of money down the road.

Ok, maybe I’m exagerating a little, but of all our grade 8 graduates, what percentage do you think would be successful with the above types of calculations?

It’s likely (though I don’t have data) that many adults would not be successful at the items you mention, with the exception of tiling the bathroom. I think most Grade 8 graduates would be able to work that one out, provided the bathroom had straight lines for dimensions and was not some really weird shape. They do learn how to calculate area and perimeter of regular polygons.

The problem is not that teachers are not teaching and students are not learning—the problem is that teachers are not teaching, and students not learning, the skills you believe are important :math facts, algorithms, spelling, grammar, sentence structure, penmanship, and likely others besides. And why are they not learning those things? Because those skills are not in the Ontario Curriculum, or to the extent they are, it is only in the most fleeting and superficial way.

Teachers will be disciplined for emphasizing the things you believe are important. It’s that simple. If change is to occur, the curriculum has to be changed to make those skills mandatory.

The thinking at the Ministry is that these things are passe and no longer needed for “twenty-first century learners.” They can use calculators, spell check, text messaging, software; only “higher level thinking” is important.

Although I’m not convinced it’s a step forward, Grade 2 students can “activate their schema,” make “text to world connections,” work in co-operative groups to develop rap songs about global warming, use Power Point to make a presentation, yadda yadda. “Critical thinking” is the big deal. Arithmetic? Spelling? Low level stuff we are not to waste time on. Computers can do it. No need to learn “mere facts” any more, you can always Google any facts you want (of course students rarely can tell what information they Google is reliable and what is not—I showed them a website on the “Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus”—a supposedly endangered species—and none caught on to the hoax. http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus.html
Try it on your own children and see if they get it).

Students learn what they are taught. There is a disjunct between what they are taught and what many here (including myself) think they need to be taught. But they are learning.

* The skills you enumerated above that I believe are important are just the start; I’m in no way advocating that these are the only skills needed.
Of course reading and understanding books of all types, critical thinking and higher level thinking are the goals in the long term.

I just fail to understand how you can develop a love of reading when you can’t read too well, or critical think when you don’t have the basics of geography, biology, history or how you can creatively invent something when you can’t do algebra or fractions.

* “Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus” that’s a good one!
I’ve tried it and to my astonishment my son was not bothered by the site. He didn’t get it!
He was just wondering why I’m interested in this endagered species and not others.

He has only studied biology for a short while and I think bacteria is as far as they got for now but still .. my jaw dropped.