SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Private Values

A new Goldwater Institute study brief reports on a comparative survey of 1,350 Arizona students who attend either a public school or else a private school with a tax credit scholarship. The researchers wanted to find out which group of students showed a greater sense of civic responsibility, volunteered in their community more, and were more tolerant of diversity. They learned that the private school students were overwhelmingly better citizens. For example, when asked the question “People whose views I oppose should be allowed to live in my neighborhood”, 79% of private school students agreed - versus 46.7% of public school students. When asked whether their school teaches them “to respect, value, and tolerate differences in others”, 76% of private school students agreed - versus 51% of public school students. In terms of volunteering in the community, 44% of private school students had done so in the past year, versus 33% of public school students. These results suggest that there is no reason to believe that Arizona public schools are doing a better job at teaching civic virtues than they are at teaching academics.

Furthermore, it seems likely that this phenomenon is not confined to Arizona. That Canadian private schools do a good job of inclucating civic values is suggested by the fact that although the current Canadian prime minister was educated in public schools, the six prime ministers before him were educated in private schools. 

Mapping a Solution

As this short YouTube video demonstrates, there is widespread ignorance about geography. Click here for an article from SQE’s archives that suggests ways for parents to teach their children where things are in the world. 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

School for Thought notes with interest that the Ontario College of Teachers will begin granting its members the professional designation OCT (Ontario Certified Teacher). The Society for Quality Education thinks this is such a good idea that we have decided to begin granting our own supporters the professional designation QED (Quality Education Defender). For the same modest annual fee ($120) as that charged by the Ontario College of Teachers, you too can have your very own professional designation. In order to maintain your professional status as a quality education defender, you need only avoid breaking the law - or at least getting caught breaking the law. Furthermore, we are offering a special introductory rate of only $100. This offer is good for only the next 59 weeks. So hurry and send in your cheque or money order today. You’ll be glad you did!   Signed, Malkin Dare, QED

Literacy by Grade 3:  Are We Too Late?

The Dean of Education at the University of Western Ontario has proclaimed that if kids can’t read well by the end of Grade 3 they are doomed to poor academic results and are at risk of dropping out of school.  Dean Julia O’Sullivan was the principal researcher on this report released by the Canadian Education Statistics Council.  The report says that teachers should be better trained to teach reading. 

School for Thought has been saying this for ages.  The flatlined EQAO results in Ontario and the ‘no-fail’ policies don’t inspire us to think that much will change.  Malkin’s previous post about the myths of instruction bears out our mantra that without drastic change to how children are taught beginning reading, nothing will change. 

Myths About Teaching

In her excellent book Myths and Misconceptions about Teaching, Vicki E. Snider argues that modern-day classrooms, even in private schools, tend to be strongly influenced by several false beliefs about instruction that are nevertheless taken for granted by everyone concerned. Snider highlights four myths that result in ineffective teaching and two myths that are used to explain away the academic failure that inevitably results.

The Four Myths about Instruction

•  “Myth #1  The myth of process emphasizes what occurs during instruction and de-emphasizes what happens as a result of instruction. When activities and projects become an end in themselves, there is little accountability for learning outcomes. Actual achievement is less important than participation.
• “Myth #2   They myth of fun and interesting ensures that the process is not only emphasized but is entertaining as well. This myth ignores the fact that the initial learning of a skill or concept is rarely fun. it’s the fluent performance and application in a new context that is enjoyable.
• “Myth #3   The myth of eclectic instruction refers to the practice of drawing on a variety of teaching methods and materials. Teachers believe that designing patchwork lessons is creative and makes learning more interesting. This haphazard approach, however, ignores the complexity of curriculum and restricts teachers’ practice to what is intuitive.
• “Myth #4   The myth of the good teacher assigns most of the variation in teaching quality to the personal characteristics of the teacher rather than to the quality of the teaching. Inspired teaching not only depends on the person doing the teaching but also on his or her level of skill and access to effective curricula.”

 The Two Myths that Allow Teachers to Sleep at Night

•  “Myth #5   The myth of learning style refers to the popular idea that teaching methods should be matched to students’ unique characteristics. Although individualization is desirable, learning style assumes that certain learner characteristics are intrinsic when they may in fact be the result of experiential factors that are amenable to instruction. As a result, teachers may inadvertently deny low-performing students opportunities to learn.
• “Myth #6   The myth of disability refers to the low expectations that are conferred on students once they are believed to have a disability or risk factors such as low socioeconomic or minority status. Rather than view them as students in need of more and better instruction, educators may view them as uneducable.”

No More Pencils, No More Books, No More Teachers’ Dirty Looks

This Toronto Star article reports on a Barrie teacher who seeks to engage her grade 2/3 students by creating an environment where teachers and students collaborate and co-operate. No more paper and pencil tests. No more lecturing. No more homework. Other progressive practices mentioned in the article include “using graphic novels instead of including the classics, letting students submit a voice-recorded essay instead of a written one, or even allowing teens to design their own courses…. The cutting edge practices at her school are part of an overall push by the Simcoe County District School Board to focus on 21st-century teaching and learning.” School for Thought notes without comment that The Simcoe County District School Board is ranked fourth from the bottom on the C.D. Howe Institute’s ranking of Ontario school boards. 

The Unusual Suspect

An article in the Sunday Star reports on the difficulties that incoming university students are having with math. At some campuses, up to half of student fail or quit first-year math! Many of the unusual suspects for students’ math difficulties are blamed in the article - the elimination of grade 13, too much multi-tasking, poor work ethic…. However, School for Thought would like to suggest an unusual suspect - namely, the “progressive” teaching methods and materials used in most modern public schools, especially in the primary grades where many children are failing to get the basic skills necessary for advanced math performance.

Most people presume that children who struggle with math have received first-class instruction at school. It therefore follows that he source of their math problems must lie somewhere else. But what if the assumption that they have received first-class math instruction is wrong? If this assumption is wrong (and much mainstream research indicates that this is the case), then adding extra years of school, eliminating multi-tasking, or asking kids to work harder will not help. Better teaching methods and materials are called for.

Click here for a list of recommended math teaching materials.

The Customer is Always Right

This Toronto Sun column discusses the Toronto Public School Board’s four new alternative schools - one Africentric, two Waldorf-based (a very “progressive”, holistic approach), and one with an environmental/peace-making theme. Do you see a pattern emerging? A glance at the other alternative schools confirms that the board’s willingness to offer alternatives is confined to trendy options, like for example, the Scarborough Village Alternative School which offers a “problem-solving, independent, creative, and co-operative” learning approach. Yet when the Society for Quality Education sponsored a survey of parents who choose Ontario private schools, we learned that disappointment with publicly-funded schools was a very important factor in their choice. One of the main things these parents were looking for was an emphasis on academic quality. 

Given that the Toronto Public School Board continues to hemorrhage students, wouldn’t it make sense for the board to start offering the kind of schools that so many parents apparently want?

Something Doesn’t Add Up

An article in yesterday’s The Globe and Mail discusses a perception that school parent groups are facing increased pressure to fundraise because of government cutbacks. Schools are so cash-strapped, according to the article, that fundraising money is sometimes being used for supplies as basic as paper. Yet according to the Ontario Ministry of Education’s report, education funding has been steadily rising for many years. In 2002-03, Ontario spent $14,737,216,411. Every succeeding year showed a substantial increase, such that the estimated school board funding for last year is $19,205,601,169. Thus, there has been an increase of approximately four and a half billion dollars over a six-year period - about a 30 percent increase. At the same time, student enrolment has been steadily decreasing: from 1,997,479 in 2002-03 to 1,908,414 last year - a loss of 89,605 students, or about five percent. So where did the money go?

A Better Way to Fail

An ‘F’ for Social Promotion is a new backgrounder from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. It makes a very persuasive case for ending rigid no-fail policies, citing their many undesirable consequences - for example: graduates who lack necessary skills and knowledge; ever-widening ability disparities within classrooms; and a decrease in students’ motivation to work hard. On the other side, however, it is undeniable that it can be very upsetting to students to fail a year, and in many cases a second exposure to the same old same old doesn’t do them much good anyway. In short, as currently presented, neither alternative is very palatable. It’s time to start thinking outside the box. Here are a couple of ideas to prime the pump, and we hope our readers will weigh in with others. 

• We might look to France where it is so common for students to be held back or jumped ahead that there is little or no stigma attached to failure. 
• We might consider monthly student promotion decisions.
• We might think about creating homogeneous ability classes in several subjects, such that a student might take grade 6 language but grade 8 math.
• We might let parents make promotion decisions.