Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog

Follow Us
Follow SQESocQualEd
on Twitter

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Dogs in the manger?

Dogs in the manger?
December 22, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 05:52 AM

Here's a disingenuous proposal from a Tennessee teachers' union president to restrict school board trustees to people who have worked in the education field. The three-minute video clip makes the point that at election time most teachers' unions identify sympathetic school board candidates and support them in various ways, including financial support. So I asked myself - does this happen in my school board?

Sure enough, when I looked at the Waterloo Region District School Board, I found that 7 of the 10 non-acclaimed trustees had been supported by the local teachers' unions and every single one of them had strong education and/or union ties. I would be interested to find out if this is true in other Canadian school boards.

Assuming it is the case most everywhere, you have to wonder why the Tennessee teachers' union president wants to cut out non-educators completely. What more could the unions possibly want than they are already getting? H/T to Chas

 

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Putting the foxes in charge of the henhouses

December 21, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 07:14 AM

Have you ever noticed school boards' tendency to shut down their most successful schools? I tell the story of two such schools in my book, How to get the right education for your child. I'm guessing that the reason behind this tendency may be that the exceptional schools make the rest look bad.

In this vein, I offer a story from Georgia, where the school board is trying to shut down its award-winning Fulton Science Academy Middle School. The details are complicated - they always are - but the bottom line is that the Fulton County District is trying very hard to find reasons to close Fulton Science Academy, as opposed to finding reasons to keep it open and, for that matter, creating more schools like it. 

The bottom line is - there are not enough incentives for the Fulton County District to keep its good schools open and too many incentives for it to close its good schools. This doesn't make any sense. 

Unfortunately, the same sort of upside-down incentive structure exists in Ontario. It doesn't make any sense here either.

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Making Sense of the Class Size Debate

December 20, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 06:59 AM

This is a guest blog by Elaine Hirsch, a writer for onlineschools.org, who frequently writes for other blogs. 

These days, everyone is looking for ways to increase student achievement. There are innumerable factors that contribute to a student's success, but many believe the focus should be on class size. From elementary school classrooms to PhD programs, class size studies have looked at the relationship between class size and student success.

Project STAR looked at whether 12,000 K-3 students in 300 classrooms from 1985-1989 in Tennessee had higher academic achievement in small classes (13-17 students) or larger classes (22-26 students). Researchers found that students who spent three years in small classes, were on average 4.5 months ahead of their peers in Grade 4, 4.2 months in Grade 6 and 5.4 months in Grade 8. The study also found a relationship between class size and college aspirations. All students in small classes were more likely to take college admission courses such as the SAT than students who had been placed in regular size classes, although the difference in scores was not statistically significant.

Evaluators of Project STAR study have deduced that young learners may benefit from smaller class sizes because they need time to discover how to learn alongside other learners. In addition, smaller class sizes can increase student participation and engagement, leading to positive learning outcomes. Finally, smaller class sizes lead to decreased disciplinary problems, which contribute to a more positive learning environment in which there are fewer distractions from academics.

A 2008 study by University College London and Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain) for whether class size had a significant effect on student achievement at the university level. Most college students would agree with the results of the study, which found that class size has no significant effect on student achievement. This is due to the lecture-style nature of college courses, where retaining information was based on individuals instead of class discussions. While smaller classes encourage positive teacher-student interaction, larger classes encourage independent learning and positive student-student interaction in the form of study groups, which offer greater diversity of backgrounds and opinions.

When discussing class size reduction strategies, critics are quick to point out that increasing teacher quantity is no substitute for teacher quality. Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program reveals that teachers of small classes are able to spend more time actively teaching, less time on classroom management and student discipline, and more time providing students with individual attention. In short, smaller classes provide teachers opportunities to specialize their teaching efforts, while larger class settings allow students to dictate how much they learn.

Elaine's blog is in my opinion a fair representation of the point of view of the woman on the street. Against it, I offer the following.  POSTING   POSTING   POSTING   BONUS PARAGRAPH ON SMALLER CLASS SIZES (TOP OF SECOND PAGE)

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

It takes a village

December 19, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 08:14 AM

A recent article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald encourages parents to let their kids walk to school. The article points out many obvious advantages - the exercise, the diminished hazard of parents dropping off and picking up their kids at the school, the reduced car emission pollution - and adds another one: the kids' enhanced connection to their environment and chance to smell the roses along the way. 

Of course, the modern tendancy towards megaschools means that many kids live too far away from their school to walk there. Perhaps we could learn something from the Swiss canton of Aargau where there are no school buses and virtually all of the children walk or bike to school. As this Swiss schooling article from our archives points out, there are additional advantages to having small local schools.

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Sunday at the Movies (Direct Instruction)

December 18, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 10:03 AM

Zig Engelmann has designed programs that ensure that every child, no matter how disadvantaged, can learn to a high standard. His programs work without the need for small class sizes or lavish spending, although they do require considerable professional development. Unfortunately for low socio-economic children, Professor Engelmann's programs (Direct Instruction) are anathema to most educators - because they involve scripted teaching and drilling. As a result, progressive educators, with the best of intentions, are ensuring that millions of disadvantaged children have no chance to rise above the circumstances of their birth. In my opinion, this is one of the major factors in the perpetuation of class differences in modern society.



SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

No Inspections for Explosions of Knowledge

December 17, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 07:22 AM

Guest blog by Rod Clifton, recently-retired education professor at the University of Manitoba

On December 14, I retired after 38 years of teaching at Memorial University and the University of Manitoba. The same day that I had my last class, the hot water tank in my house quit working and so we called a plumber to see if it could be repaired. Unfortunately, it turned out that we had to buy a new tank and have it installed. Two weeks later, the gas company phoned to arrange for an inspector to come and examine the plumber's work. A couple of days later, the inspector examined the gas coupling and certified that the hot water tank was installed properly. Thank goodness!

Having the inspector from the gas company inspect the work of a professional plumber got me thinking. As I said, I have been teaching for 38 years, and I have taught all these years in faculties of education, Yet never once has an expert in teaching come in and examined my teaching! Why are we more concerned with the proper connection of gas fittings than with the proper teaching of professors? Isn't this an irony, especially in faculties of education where one might think good teaching highly valued?

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

The Modern Version of Samizdat

December 16, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 08:41 AM

I first became aware of the problems with public education about 25 years ago when my son was experiencing difficulties at school. Naturally, I did some investigation, and I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the way the teachers at my son's school were teaching (and I use the word very loosely). Really, I sometimes almost had to kick myself.

So now it's 25 years on and nothing has changed. Every once in a while, I feel the need for a reality check. Surely, it must be me who's wrong here. It can't be possible that such unbelievable goings-on continue unchecked. Is this a case of everyone being out of step except my son John?

Yet, sadly, my reality checks always confirm my misgivings. The latest is Margaret Wente's column in yesterday's Globe and Mail, in which she took on modern methods of teaching math. At press time, there were 556 comments, almost to a man agreeing that math is being taught abysmally. In her column, Margaret gave a plug for the WISE Math initiative, which is now boasting 501 signatures, many with heart-rending stories attached. 

There is real anguish out there, and not just about math teaching. Can someone please explain to me how something so absurd can continue to be imposed on unwilling parents and communities for such a long time?

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Poverty is not necessarily a life sentence

December 15, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 05:53 AM

In light of the repeated reiterations of one of our most frequent commenters that schools can't be expected to teach disadvantaged students to a high standard, I offer this school turnaround story. By focusing on teaching strategies and professional development, Cochrane Collegiate Academy, a formerly-struggling school in a high-poverty area of West Charlotte, has more than doubled student achievement and continues to reach for more. Here are Cochrane's ten learning non-negotiables. 

Because the school starts at grade 6 (by which time most students have already fallen several grades behind), it is much more difficult for the teachers to overcome their students' disadvantages. A K-8 school would doubtless be able to improve its student achievement more and faster.

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Precision Teaching

December 14, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 08:01 AM

Almost unknown in Ontario, despite its almost unbelievable results, is precision teaching. This technique sets "time-based mastery criteria", provides "daily opportunities for practice and timed measurement", "charts performance on a graph", changing "procedures when the chart shows they're not working". This article is a good starting point for learning more about precision teaching.

Unfortunately, precision teaching is the unflavour of the decade in most of North America these days, what with its emphasis on drill and rote learning. It apparently doesn't matter that precision-taught students love the process and go on to master the higher-order thinking skills modern educators prize so highly. 

There are a few pockets of precision teaching in Ontario, none of them in a publicly-funded school to the best of my knowledge. They are: The Precision Learning Centre in Maple; QLC Educational Services and QLC Learning Centre in Belleville; Sources Learning Centre in Cornwall; and TriArch Educational Services in Whitby, Cobourg, Peterborough, Scarborough, and Toronto.

SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

Phonics First - Or Bust

December 13, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 07:58 AM

I wrote the following article with the help of Case Vanderwolf, Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Western Ontario.

When I was a reading tutor, I succeeded in teaching all of my students to read, but not all of my students learned to read as well as I would have liked. As a broad generalization, the younger kids were when I started teaching them phonics, the more fluent readers they became.

The youngest student I ever taught to read was my daughter, who was four at the time. She rapidly became a voracious reader. I have taught no kindergarten students and only one grade 1 student. That grade 1 student soon could read as easily as he could breathe. As far as I know however, none of my grade 4-and-up students has ever gone on to read for pleasure. 

When it came to my grade 2 and 3 students, the ones who did best were the ones who had come to me with almost no skills. Although these kids had been exposed to reading instruction at school, very little had penetrated. As a result, I was able to more or less introduce these students to reading, starting at the very beginning, and usually they went on to become pretty good readers. In other words, the more instruction my students had received at school, the worse their chances of becoming comfortable with print. I found this frustrating, and I wondered what was going on.

Then I came across the research of Geraldine E. Rodgers, a former primary teacher. Ms Rodgers claims that the way children are introduced to reading has a permanent influence on their later fluency. There are two basic approaches to teaching reading: whole-word, whereby the students are taught to look at words as a whole; and sound-based, whereby students are taught to process words letter-by-letter on the basis of the sounds the letters represent.

I used a purely-sound-based approach, but most public school teachers use an approach called “Balanced Literacy”, a whole-word method. Balanced Literacy, like most whole-word methods, incorporates some elements of a sound-based approach (phonics), but never enough to qualify as a sound-based approach. According to Ms. Rodgers, children who are started off with a whole-word method tend to do worse than children who are started off with a sound-based approach (phonics).

At this point, I must caution that this principle does not appear to apply to about 25%-40% of children – since some children manage to figure out the alphabetic principle more or less on their own. These children go on to become very good readers and are in a category of their own.

Geraldine Rodgers believes that the way children are introduced to reading establishes irreversible brain patterns. Sound-based readers develop the ability to process words automatically and instantly, in about one-sixth of a second. Whole-word readers, on the other hand, are forever destined to read words as a whole, like a series of pictures, and this creates a drag on their reading fluency. It’s like a hard-of-hearing person who has to strain to understand what people are saying.

The evidence is overwhelming that training of various kinds produces real anatomical changes in the brain. Since this has been demonstrated with many different kinds of experiences, it is probably true of any training. This means that we can be fairly confident that teaching children to read will produce changes in their brains. Training involves changes to the detailed structure of the pyramidal cells of the neo-cortex. These calls are large neurons that have a bush-like structure growing up out of them. The branches of the bush are called dendrites, and training elongates these dendrites, produces more branches, and results in changes to their synaptic contacts with other cells. Changes like these last a long time and are very hard, if not impossible, to eradicate. Early training really counts.

When children are introduced to reading via a method that looks at words as wholes or pictures, they are unlikely ever to become totally comfortable with print. Although it is possible to superimpose sound-processing (phonics) later on, most readers who were started via a whole-word system can never lay down new neural patterns that will completely over-ride the old whole-word patterns. It’s like a child who develops rickets as a toddler because he didn’t get enough calcium. No matter how much calcium he absorbs later on, permanent damage has been done to his bones and he will never be able to run as fast as he should.

If you are responsible for introducing a young child to reading, please make sure that the student is introduced to reading via a sound-based (systematic phonics) method. It is true that some children will do fine no matter how they are introduced to reading, but the odds are not in their favour.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >