Good enough Malkin but do you not make the decision of what gets posted here yourself?

I posted twice to “Not Perfect World” and apparently someone’s decided it’s not worthy of posting….yet you’re reminding us to keep things civil. 

You choose to post what’s here, but don’t like what you’re posting? Isn’t it all based on the rules and criteria set up by SQE?

I’d like to know for example why you’d allow a Zinger from one person, let that stand and not approve another opinion. Perhaps some insight is needed?

If two of your posts were not allowed it, it was an accident and I do apologize. There is so much spam that yours may have been lost in the shuffle.

When I don’t allow a posting in, I always send an e-mail to the poster and explain why.

Malkin has been pretty, dare i say it? “liberal” in allowing free-flowing discussion.
It is important that we air different perspectives.
A lot of what works in schools can be contextual. Students, teachers, subjects, grades, classroom demographics change.
While quality research offers some powerful suggestions and directions that put the odds of success in the learner’s favour, they are not guarantees, even when done well.

And, speaking of learning, we often learn best from those with whom we disagree. Those folks may have ideas, research, perspectives that should be listened to.

There are some key dilemmas in education—dilemmas because both sides have claims that should not be dismissed. Here is one example,

“Should education teach us the best of what we have or lead us towards the future?” Both sides have a place; neither side can be ignored.

So an early Valentine’s for all!

I have teaching,and writing, and GROAN marking to do. So I shall check from to time but be less visible on the blogs to which I have tried to contribute.

thanks Malkin. I understand. I did have difficulty getting to SFT yesterday and this morning as well.

Hmm, “A lot of what works in schools can be contextual. Students, teachers, subjects, grades, classroom demographics change.
While quality research offers some powerful suggestions and directions that put the odds of success in the learner’s favour, they are not guarantees, even when done well.”

Well, to me that’s a politically correct statement.

Yes, any work that involves people first and foremost is contextual.
However .. when you have programs such as Jump Math, Spirit of Math, Open Court, phonics program with a consistent track record in different circumstances then no, mostly no.

We are not talking about 5%-10%-15% percent differences in achievement which, I agree can be mostly contextual. Same teacher, same program, different students. Or solid curriculum teacher with solid background but first year with that curriculum.

We are talking about differences such as 20-25% versus 80% children reading, or differences such as 30% knowing fractions and 85% knowing fractions. These are staggering differences from a statistical point of view and they are not contextual, unless by context you mean quality curriculum implemented in its spirit and taught by competent teachers. These are extremely favorable odds for the learner!

No guarantees, yes, absolutely. There will always be people pointing out that no method teaches 100% percent of the children and therefore defend the status quo.
Well, yeah, but if instead of the current methods we can use methods that roughly double the achievement or more then that will be a huge difference in the life of so many and especially in the lives of the most disadvantaged children whose families cannot afford tutors.

“Well, to me that’s a politically correct statement.”

no, it is NOT PC
it is a true statement
backed up by thousands of research studies

nothing works equally well for all students all the time

the research is often like medical research
think of all the caveats or exceptions to taking drug “x” due to complicating conditions, genetic history, etc.

we can teach so that the odds for students are in their favour
but if you want guarantees . . .

John,she`s not talking 100 percent,she`s talking drastic improvement-how many kids have I seen,mainly boys,who are at the onset of Grade 3 barely reading,barely able to spell and form letters who 3 months later are reading and spelling above grade level.Give her that,she asked on perfect world,who is it that sits stoically by when kids in grade 1 didn`t learn to read,or grade 2 or grade 3..

Why is it politically incorrect to teach them and save them from academic failure?

Is it really more important for teacher to get another raise?

you have misread the previous posts

What I said
- context counts

initial response from Europe
- my comment was PC

My response to
an interpretation
from Europe
- based on evidence context is not PC
and that “we can teach so that the odds for students are in their favour
but if you want guarantees . . .”

I made no reference to teacher raises.

and have no issues with the rest of
from Europe’s post

Sorry for attaching a label to your statement, John.

It is a true statement in terms of pure logic.

These types of statements from people like you John, who are aware of the big increases in the odds of student achievement proven teaching methods such a direct instruction or good phonics methods feed the status quo.

Yes, no teaching method can achieve 100%.
However I think it is a huge difference between let’s say 40% and 80%.
I am just as worried as I’m guessing you are about having good methods being supposedly implemented in pilot programs where all that’s left from the method is the name and all that gets achieved is discrediting the method.

For example, it seems that a lot of the teachers today think they are doing direct instruction when the teacher teaches to the whole class of students.
Really? Direct Instruction in its core, in its spirit means first and foremost having a well sequenced,  step-by-step tested curriculum (not just a lesson) where concepts built on top of each other in an incremental way.
Secondly it means constantly keeping all the students active by asking them very specific questions and having them constantly respond and then correcting on the spot any misunderstanding that their answers bring to light.

How many of our young teachers even dare to ask a student who has not volunteered a specific question? Very few. They were taught that they should not do that because it puts the kid on the spot and damages their self-esteem.

How many of our young teachers dare to correct an answer that is incorrect or incomplete by saying so? Very few. Most likely they will give the right answer by making it look as if they are just rephrasing what the student has said.

That’s why a lot of young people are clueless. They think that any answer is good as long as it has a vague reference to what was asked or uses some of the words from the question.
And if you tell them it’s incorrect or incomplete - I’m talking science stuff - they will look at you with these big, beautiful, inocent eyes and they will tell you “That’s what I know and that’s my opinion” and they either get mad at you or fall apart.

Because of all this lack of feedback during so many years of schooling and the emphasis on self-esteem at any price “to know something” for a young person today most likely mean I’ve heard of it. It not longer means I know I can explain it, I can do it, I can use the correct scientific terms for it.

So that’s why I think that statements like yours, which get interpreted as since there are no guarantees and we are doing pretty good today why change, give ammunition to the people that want to continue what we have today. (which personally I think is a Disaster)

That is the problem Europe, you think it is a disaster but the vast majority thinks we have a fine system, one of the world’s very best. It is better than any system in Europe except Finland. Ontario is the English speaking world’s finest system.

You will not get a perfect system NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

Sounds like some people now want to make it worse by increasing class sizes. Pathetic.

The fact that you consider to be a fine system a system where
- at the end of grade 3 about 40% of the students cannot read and write well
- high school graduates cannot write correctly in their own language and struggle with basic math

is only a reflection of your own values.

Good for you that you are happy with so little! 
I do not share your values.

.

I attempted a response to John Myers earlier but got a caution from the moderator, but I essentially echoed what Europe has written above only directed it at Mr. Myers.

I did also add that I find the explanations of Mr. Myers more in line with the sweeping generalizations parents get from within the system when they try to challenge it.

I also tried to post earlier that the teachers in front of today’s classrooms are products of the experiment with whole language and fuzzy math themselves, so what students receive is a recycling of bad practice and method proven ineffective.  Hardly a leap to support what Europe writes…...but very hard swallowing the excuses.

The fact that you consider to be a fine system a system where
- at the end of grade 3 about 40% of the students cannot read and write well
- high school graduates cannot write correctly in their own language and struggle with basic math

is only a reflection of your own values.

Good for you that you are happy with so little! 
I do not share your values.

Canada is in the world’s top 3 nations with readers at 15 years of age.

I challenge you directly Mr Europe to name a jurisdiction that is doing better other than Finland and Korea. There are very clear reasons why those 2 countries are slightly ahead.

Like all serious people I believe that there is still room for Canada to improve but that will come from smaller classes, ECE, and teachers with MA or 2 in every classroom. We also need a one size fits all system with centralized approved curriculum and expectations. Like Finland we need no streaming or specialization of any kind in core areas until age 16 (grade 10).

The formula for improvement has never been clearer.

So Mr Europe, who does better than Canada? Cat got your tongue? Time to put up OR ...............

It’s ok, Mr.Doug, be happy believing whatever you want to believe. It’s a free world.

Reality is in everybody’s face:

- The cashiers that cannot give change without looking the cash register

- The young employees who cannot focus for more than 15 minutes at a time, who grow restless and feel unfairly treated because the task is no fun

- People needing financial advice for pretty much anything because only a specialist can understand and explain percentages

- College and university students taking remedial courses because even though they have a high school diploma do not have the skills

- A supposedly highly educated work force with what 40%-60% having university or college degrees out of which a good part do work that would have required just high school 40 years ago because the high school diploma means nothing today and because their university or college degree hasn’t taught them skills that are in demand by the economy

Sure, on paper things look good, very good.
Reality is something alltogher different.

To paraphrase the late Mr.Reagan, let me ask: “Are your children are better off today, better prepared for work and life then you were 40 years ago?”

Your nostalia problem Mr Europe is that you believe that it was better at some time in the past. The education system has never been better than it is now.

The answer Mr Europe is that our Canadian society is FAR better educated than 40 years ago and everyone associated with education knows this.

Education has been a steady march upwards with no backwards steps. There was no “Golden Era” when we did better than we do today.

You know, it’s wonderful to have Doug here to present the point of view of status quo educators. Thank you, Doug, for participating!

Status Quo is right out of the talking points of the Corporate Reform movement in the USA. There are 2 groups contending for hegemony in education. They are

1) The Corporate Reform Model (testing charters vouchers, merit pay .deprofessionalization,privatization, profit, religion .....)

and

2) The Progressive Reform model (smaller classes, ECE/ELP, upgrading the education of teachers, common curriculum, fund fully public schools only, .....)

There is no status quo group. If you hadn’t noticed, I am in group 2. SQE is in group 1.