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

Engineering Education

December 05, 2013 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 06:43 AM

GUEST BLOG BY FRANK GUE, SQE DIRECTOR AND RETIRED ENGINEER

The education paradigm that has produced Canadian math under-achievers, defended by the usual apologists, falls into the general heading of “progressive education”.  Promoters of this educational monstrosity have applied every imaginable principle of good teaching backward, with results we skeptics have been deploring and predicting for decades.  Examples:

Fiction: Rote learning must be discouraged.  Fact: every human accomplishment springs from a platform of rote learning.  We engineers have at our command thousands of facts, principles, figures, laws, procedures without our use of which the bridge would fall down and the 747 airplane would never have been designed, much less flown.

Fiction:  The process is just as important as the right answer.  Fact: The right answer is the only important result of number work.  Questions such as why or explain how some process works, imposed on students routinely, are ridiculously irrelevant.

Fiction: Students are taught to try several “strategies” for the solution of numeric problems.  Why bother?  Humankind has spend millenia developing proven, efficient (as the apologists admitted this morning) processes for solving numeric problems.  It is wasteful, counter-productive, and discouraging (to the point of students’ flowing tears) to abandon them and try some finger-diddly exercise to multiply two numbers.  6 x 7 = 42.  Memorize it and know it. 

The apologists airily dismiss the truism that “We stand on the shoulders of giants” and suggest that students “stand on their own shoulders”.  One stands aghast, words failing; students are to “discover” (a favorite word) how to extract a square root, when it took Descartes, a math genius, years?  To be stupidly literal, how does one stand on his own shoulders?

Fiction: Don’t worry if you didn’t ‘get it’.  We’ll come back to it next year.  Fact:  For success in math (or any other subject), mastery rests on mastery, segment by segment, each understood and mastered before the next is undertaken.

Fiction:  We don’t need exams.  The teacher knows if the student has “passed”.   Fact:  Orderly preparation for tests and exams is an essential review without which principles and procedures cannot be internalized by average students.  The teacher cannot know if the student has mastery because he cannot get into the student’s head.  Assignments and tests are essential.

I could go on.

And on.

And on.

Clearly, the folk who designed “progressive education” have never had to be responsible for a demonstrated result, such as manufacturing something useful or meeting a payroll.  They have, however, demonstrated their special result, such as producing a Grade 12 graduate who, clerking in a radio store, was unwilling even to try to count-out the customer’s 76 cents of exact change which she had laid on the counter for him.

We’d better hope that such a person is not mixing our intraveinous bag or landing our airplane.

How dare I speak this way?  I am a professional engineer with two highly technical, numbers-laden degrees, one a Master’s.  I have had over 60 years of technical engineering work.  Asked to chair an Education committee, I studied, line by line, with rising frustration and anger, the Ontario public school curricula.  Without reservation, I can state that no one taught exclusively by these methods could hope to come within a country mile of passing my exams and doing my work.

I have also encountered the implacable, entrenched resistance of the rich, powerful, influential Education establishment (“The Blob”), from the top (Ministry level) to the bottom (some practicing teachers) to reform, especially any suggestion we return to “the basics”, which has become a swear word among them.

In the interests of my blood pressure, I must stop.  But I can say with passion that we know the problem and much of the solution.  Increasingly, politicians and thinking educators realize that we have blown education and must find our way back to the blazed trail.  Fortunately, we can see it from here.  It’s just up that steep hill .....

2013 Canadian Weblog Awards nominee

Share this article

Comments

I have only my high school math, but even I can understand how ridiculous the math curriculum is—it defies logic when asking students to figure out the math themselves.
Typical of the government:  the teachers are unqualified to teach arithmetic, and the textbook writers are unqualified to be writing the texts.  Obviously from the ridiculous course outlines, the educrats writing the curriculum are unqualified as well.  This is the way it is when accountability is non-existent.  Our politicians fear losing public sector votes if they change things for the benefit of our children.  Shame on all of them!

The only way out of the mess we call Ontario’s math curriculum is for parents to use jump math, Kumon, and excellent online courses.  The problem is, too many parents don’t know about these alternatives.  I feel for the working poor who are too tired at the end of the day to be proactive in helping to get their children get a decent education—this is what is perpetuating poverty.  I’ll say it again—shame on the politicians and the educrats.

Posted by Bev on 12/05 at 08:43 AM

” Students are taught to try several “strategies” for the solution of numeric problems.  Why bother?  Humankind has spend millenia developing proven, efficient (as the apologists admitted this morning) processes for solving numeric problems.”

Its much more dire, than having students learning several inefficient strategies. The students are graded by their creativity in words and pictures. In the grade 3 class, my youngest truly learned the meaning of the word ‘sarcastic’. She came up with the saying, after she grew accustomed to hate math class and school in general. Math was ‘words, pictures and numbers’ in that order The words and pictures got all the marks but not the numbers. My youngest at that time could not string a few words together and as for pictures she saw no sense in drawing a picture. On top of all that, she was having major difficulty in handwriting because handwriting instruction is no more in the schools.

Creativity is graded - having the correct answer is no longer necessary. My poor kid, would have the correct answer but in picture and words she would get zero marks, and that is if one could read it. To overcome it, I taught my child this strategy to which I thought was pretty creative on my part to overcome the picture requirement. But no, the strategy was banned in the classroom!  Take for example 6 X 7 -  she would draw a box in the center of the space. In the box she would write 6 X 7 = 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7. Outside of the box, she would draw crosses or triangles or simple geometry shapes that she could do with ease, in groupings of six sevens. Not considered creative enough and nor did she get credit that the multiplication concept is just a faster way of doing addition. She had to draw real world objects such as trees or toys. Ergo, the poor kid was tagged with another label - not at all creative. As for me, I was tagged as a problem parent who was teaching my kid bad things.

Discovery learning and the damage it leaves in its wake, shows up in the data outcome streams of students and eventually society. I observed in the later years when my child was in high school, how many of the future doors are shut, nailed and locked for students to access the post-secondary education offerings or even find a job. The students do not have the skills and knowledge to access the doors of post-secondary and the working world;  Options are far fewer, when students do not have a firm foundation in the fundamentals of the 3 Rs. One would think that after 12 years of schooling, the public education system would at least carry out this part of their mandate, but no the education elite are determined not to teach children, but to entertained them. No time for the fundamentals of the 3 Rs…....no time…....I am late for my creativity developing session….I am late for my newest problem solving solving session…......but the BLOB have no time for the fundamentals, because they have transferred the responsibilities to the parents without telling the parents its their job.

The damaging legacy of discovery learning
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-damaging-legacy-of-discovery-learning/article15768057/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=The Globe and Mail&utm_type=text&utm_content=TheGlobeandMail&utm_campaign=111519174

Canada must stop being ‘a school that never issues report cards’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-is-canada-a-school-that-never-issues-report-cards/article15758230/

Posted by Nancy on 12/05 at 09:07 AM

The BLOB - the education elite sure loves to lord over their students in all shapes and sizes, across Canada. Even worse, the BLOB lording over their students is the education elite at the top levels discussing the education of children on the basis of the mysterious education philosophies/processes, almost mystic, that the transfer of knowledge from teacher to child is exactly the same for the child of the 18th century as for the 21st century children. I encountered this European paper on what came before Dewey’s progressivism and child centered pedagogy - a 2007 paper entitled Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik. Its a revealing window on the thinking processes of the education elite of the 21st century and the connection to the trend of steady decline of PISA achievement in Canada and in other Western countries. Of course here standard testing should not be employed in the schools of the 21st century, and here is a quote lifted from a rather longish essay of contradictions and assumptions based on ideas that have already been proven false by the 21st century science and advances in the learning, cognitive and neuroscience fields. “Even worse is the implied understanding of Bildung and knowledge for society at large – on the one hand, because it makes the level of (cognitive) expertise the one and only parameter of good teaching, and even more so, because it insinuates that the degree of a specific type of mastery is what counts for your ability to participate, to have your own voice, to achieve your own Bildung, your own legitimate Weltanschauung. You are above or below average only according to your ability to match a certain sequence of matter and competencies. Again this fits with a pre-modern understanding of Bildung as a hierarchical structured sequence of knowledge hierarchically distributed in society. But what about, for example, children with special needs or students with
minority and other non-fitting backgrounds? Within
the realms of modern comparative assessment they can only count as liabilities or are simply excluded as non-fitting entities (cf. Koretz & Barton,2003; Hörmann, 2007). To respect as valid other patterns of competency or meaning than those put into the test constructions would undermine the possibility of clear-cut results, and thereby the political and scientific reasons for having such assessments.”  http://bildungswissenschaft.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/p_bw_hist_vergl_schul_bild_forsch/common_cor_of_didaktik.pdf

According to the progressive educational theorists, no point in having the outliers of a classroom take any type of testing, in fear of their test scores undermining the average norm. Its not a great leap to connect the new wave of progressivism fads - no grades and no testing for all students. Just read the paper, and that is if one can get through what I considered, gobbledygook nonsense of the nth realm. Not based on the realities of the day, but certainly shows the thinking processes of the 21st century education elite, and why children with the learning difficulties and special needs children are at the bottom of the achievement charts, and end up receiving a third-rate education, and why it has become a crap shoot of who will or will not received an education with the skills and knowledge, that will allow the students to progress and learn. On another note, no wonder the OISE has a closed shop when it comes to their research and papers. Can’t let the public know, that education still remains in the 19th century in the 21st century. Standing on the shoulders of giants is not their forte and mastery will never be in according to the education elite of the public education system.

Posted by Nancy on 12/05 at 12:01 PM

If there WERE any way in which I could be said to be standing on my own shoulders, it would be that I elevate myself by mastering a segment, then use that accomplishment to tackle the next segment.

Therefore, Mr. Gue, any suggestion that students should “stand on their own shoulders” only serves to bolster your position.

Posted by Libertarian Book Club on 12/05 at 08:13 PM

The students (in high school) and parents have tools to keep the system accountable yet they do not.

1. OCT find a teacher will give you the qualifications and education of your child’s teacher.  Make your principal accountable for time tables.

2. The Ministry of Education will give you on their site the curriculum documents for every course under their stewardship. Make the teacher accountable for content.

these accountability tools are shockingly underused.


best.  Mirka

Posted by Mirka on 12/05 at 08:33 PM

Mirka, have you looked at the elementary curriculum lately? It has been dumbed down and you may be in for a shock. Here’s a link to the elementary math curriculum, just as an example. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf  You will notice that memorized arithmetic facts are not on the curriculum. This curriculum is similar in texture to Jell-O and cannot be used to hold anyone accountable.

Posted by Malkin Dare on 12/05 at 08:46 PM

Malkin beat me to the punch, Mirka but I should add, neither does the curriculum documents have standards for expectations in writing mechanics, keyboarding, note taking and other organization skills related to skills that are helpful and aids the students to expressed themselves in writing creatively and coherently. I am still trying to figure out how my kid passed the primary grades, even though no one could read her writing, could not string a few words together and she failed all written demand LA tests ever given to her and yet I was told she did not have learning problems by the education set all holding teachers’ certificates, by a certified teachers’ college.

To which, the OCT - really doesn’t tell the parents much, besides the teacher is duly qualified and in good standing with the OCT. Translation - has a teachers’ certificate and the teacher has paid its dues in full to the OCT. Otherwise, no parent would know if the teacher has worked and their success rate for children with reading problems. A parent might want to learn the educational background of the teacher and if they have any knowledge background in the areas of learning disabilities.

As for making principals accountable for the times tables and other essentials that are lacking in the K to 12 education system, I take it you have not talk to parents who did just that. Try it sometime, educators might learn who the parents are, if they do not know already. You be surprised how easily the parents and their concerns are brushed off. For parents in the higher income groups, they usually cut their losses, and take care of it from home in either doing it themselves, provided the educational products or hire a tutor. Unfortunately, the lower income parents are trapped between a hard place and a rock. Far fewer options, and as such are far more dependent on the school to provide an education for their child. Their concerns are easily brushed off as well by the educators unless the concerns fit in with the current goals and belief systems of the education staff.

Back to the OCT, they have expanded their mandate beyond regulation of the educators. The magazine is quite revealing on their activities on classroom practices, research and education faculties. How much influence does the OCT have to keep the teacher faculties to the status-quo of training teachers according to the progressive methods of Dewey and other progressive education gurus. After all, Ontario is the leader and the other provinces are sure to follow in the footsteps of Ontario. The awful math and science curriculum did not spread across Canada in a vacuum. It was fully in place in every province in 2005 and by 2007 the science and the math curriculum was fully entrenched in all the provinces. The reason why I know this, is because my youngest along with the rest of the students across Canada who happened to born in the years 1995 to 2000 were and still are the first guinea pigs. The PISA results is the warning bells going off, and wait until the year 2015 when it will be a three alarm bells going off.

You see the kids born in 2000, would have been totally immersed in the current math and science curriculum, instructional practices and education policies such as the child cannot fail or ever be given a 0 for a grade. If the OCT magazine is evidence, Canada can look forward to dropping another 5 or so spaces in the rankings and maybe down to the 20th spot.

Now as for calling the OCT and curriculum documents as accountability tools for parents to used, what about the report cards that are used as a political football between the stakeholders within the public education system. Now I know in the education act, report card must be legally provided to parents and its a duty for all teachers to give out a report on their students academic standing. Mirka, perhaps educators should bone up on the education act. It makes good reading and serves as an useful comparison to the realities on the ground.

Instead of trying to make parents more accountable - its time to make sure the powers above the school are forced into compliance and to be held accountable to the legal legislation/regulations and the rules created by them. Case in point - the OCT really has not done its main duty to regulate the teacher profession, and their secondary mandate, to protect the public.

It bears repeating - “Clearly, the folk who designed “progressive education” have never had to be responsible for a demonstrated result, such as manufacturing something useful or meeting a payroll.  They have, however, demonstrated their special result, such as producing a Grade 12 graduate who, clerking in a radio store, was unwilling even to try to count-out the customer’s 76 cents of exact change which she had laid on the counter for him.”  Its time to force compliance upon the education establishment instead of forcing compliance upon the public.

Posted by Nancy on 12/05 at 11:38 PM

Let us hope their is more principals like this retired principal - It is quite damning….....“There is ample empirical evidence as to why students in North America are doing so poorly in mathematics. This readily avoidable and costly failure is the direct result of the stranglehold that the Educational Establishment (Faculties of Education, Departments of Education, Teachers’ Professional Associations, and Senior School Board Administrators) have on public schools and the public purse.  Their curricular theories and practices have been categorically and consistently exposed as nonsense over the years, by North America’s leading cognitive research scientists such as Maggie Black at McGill, and David Pesetsky and Noam Chomsky at the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”  http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/12/05/alberta-educations-new-math-curriculum-is-failing-our-students-former-top-principal-says/

Posted by Nancy on 12/05 at 11:44 PM

Malkin,

I have *never* looked at the elementary curriculum - simply lack the courage.  I am crazy busy blowing up the secondary SNC 2D1 and the SBI 3U1 curriculum and their thoughtless overlaps and the critical bits that have been lost.  In my spare time I push my designated academic ‘leaders’ to make text book publishers accountable for their mistakes. 

We need some sort of short hand in this blogospere
as I only speak to what I know - that is the secondary curriculum - and it is a sorry mess.

Curricula, in secondary school,  made sense 20 years ago before it became a political football. 

The children have not been well served.

Mirka

Posted by Mirka on 12/07 at 05:33 AM

Nancy,

This is a response to your post 12/05 above.

Oh me god!  The OCT tool- “find a teacher”  is the most powerful tool that has been given to parents ever.

It is on the OCT website - but this should make you feel better-  Mike Harris put this in place, and subsequent governments also saw the value.

YES, it has more credence in the secondary panel- as subject specialists may be crucial—but shockingly are not the rule.

This is a tool that parents/advocacy groups have.  It can be lethal and should be used *not* dismissed.

If the sky is always falling - what is the point Nancy?

cheers - Mirka  

 

Posted by Mirka on 12/07 at 05:49 AM

Now tell me Mirka - how it really helps parents.

How could the information be used for parents?  I plugged in the names of Hurley and Smith. I did some exploration and discovered the information falls into the category of ‘nice to know’ info for parents, but on the other side of the coin, essential information for the teaching profession and the education stakeholders. A central location, a clearing house to confirmed the employees and employers. the qualifications based on if they have paid their dues for the OCT. Don’t pay the dues, a teacher cannot worked in a public school.

Sure a parent can find out if the high school teacher has an under graduate degree in mathematics, but of what use is the information, if the parent(s) cannot used this information to get rid of the teacher teaching grade 10 math?  Parents don’t have that kind of power, and its always pointed out from day one to parents, that as long as the teacher has a teacher’s certificate in good standing, the teacher is qualified to teach any subject. If we pushed the envelope, the respond is around the lines of - That is our job and not the parents’ job to decide who will teach your children.

Now I don’t know how many math teachers at the high school level have under graduate degrees in mathematics, but on P4E, it has been noted - indicated increasing number of high school teacher teaching out of their field. And as well as the decreasing number of specialist teachers….........I don’t think this is aiding in rising achievement but rather aiding in the decline of math achievement. Too bad the OCT doesn’t published the stats that might come in handy for the public at a school board meeting or a school meeting. For example, the number of teachers, teaching outside of their field…............at the board level, so the public does not   have to take the word of the school board officials.

Posted by Nancy on 12/07 at 09:34 AM

Nancy, you wrote:

“too bad the OCT does not publish…... number of teachers teaching outside their field”

Dear heart - that is the role of a serious advocacy group.  It would be absolutely illuminating.

The OCT has very specific roles.  It certifies teachers. It supports effective education practices with information and a regular publication.  It holds teachers accountable to specific expectations.  And if necessary it decertifies teachers given poor conduct and a hearing that determines the same.


The assigning of teachers timetables outside their expertise is something that Principals do - and they do it often.

We measure EQAO outcomes in math but no one at the ministry or the school board publishes how many teachers in semester one, or semester two, in year XXXX were teaching outside their area of expertise - as certified by the OCT.

The OCT gives you the tool.  The public/advocates are - too be blunt- too stupid to use it. 

Saul Alinksy’s rules of reform spring to mind - google them - great way to focus.


Mirka

Posted by Mirka on 12/08 at 08:05 AM

Only to do all the grunt work, and the powers to be in the education establishment promptly chooses to ignore it or at best pretends it does not exist, and brings out the rhetoric of shamelessness. SQE has one such example, the Sunshine on Schools data. The same data, that is often used by the education stakeholders for other purposes other than to served the students the education stakeholders claims they served.

The OCT is there to served the teachers, as the vehicle to regulate the teaching profession. The expansion of the OCT went from regulating the teaching profession, to promoting the goals, education practices and theories of the members in the stakeholder groups within the public education system. The fuzzy math and no grades are examples that are supported inside the OCT magazine.

Interesting how you used ridicule, that is called for by Saul Alinksy’s rules. Rule number 5 - “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

“The OCT gives you the tool.  The public/advocates are - too be blunt- too stupid to use it.”

First the neutral information, than the insult. Too bad the information on OCT, is not as friendly as the SQE’s Sunshine on Schools. http://sunshineonschools.ca/default.aspx  On t.he Sunshine on Schools front page - “Ontario Sunshine on Schools is a tool to help Ontario citizens better understand K-12 education funding, spending, and academic achievement. Too often these issues become emotional and politicized, especially when the ordinary citizen doesn’t have easy access to the facts. This website provides a place where the dollars and cents of education funding, spending, enrollment, and achievement are under one roof. We make no judgments; we merely hope that by having easy access to the facts, the citizens of Ontario will be able to formulate their own opinions on value for dollar spent.”  Too bad that can’t be said about the OCT and the data published about teachers. If one is looking up one or a few teachers - the OCT data base does the job. Otherwise, the OCT tool becomes an unyielding and inflexible tool, to collect the data of a 1000 teachers, let alone the whole province.

Posted by Nancy on 12/08 at 10:16 AM

As for your closing remarks - “Saul Alinksy’s rules of reform spring to mind - google them - great way to focus.”  I have nothing against Saul Alinksy’s rules. What is rather amusing, when parents and the public have the nerve to employed the rules of Alinksy, the education establishment reacts very badly.  On the Wikipedia version, its rather illuminating how Alinksy’s rules for radicals are being used in the 21st century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

That said, take note on rule number 3 and 4 - ““Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

Mirka, in the parent advocacy files and also in the legal files, parents are given two rules to live by, in their advocacy for their child’s education who are attending any school, whether private or public. One - to become the leading expert on their children, that moves far beyond the teachers’ knowledge and expertise. For parents it starts with the child, and expands outside of the child to the barriers of the schools that are erected by the education establishment to prevent their children from progressing and steadily achieving. A lot of parents are surprise what steadily achieving means within the school - their kid is seen by the education staff as steadily achieving when their kid is two years behind, and still cannot string a few words together to produced a sentence, but according to the education staff, the child has no learning problems. 

As for the second rule, parents should always ensure that the education establishment are enforcing and living by their own rules and regulations. However, in the school - there is not a day that goes by when the IEP and accommodations list are ignored by one or all of the teachers. Just one small example of many established rules and regulations that are not enforced, but when it comes to the rules/regulations directed at parents - each and everyone is enforced to ensure compliance by all parents. Parents get the protocols to follow. Just look them up Mirka, the protocols created by the educators and administrators, are designed to delay action on the school part, to prevent timely intervention. What should take two hours to sort out, takes six months. What should take three months, takes three years for a child to received a psycho-educational assessment. What should take a few minutes of intervention on the principal’s part in a bullying incident, morphs into a lawsuit initiated by a parent.

You see Mirka, its not the parents are stupid. Its the education establishment putting up the barriers to prevent parents from seeking the knowledge. I really was pretty naive back in 2001, thinking I was asking some pretty smart questions on what I thought was pretty bad math curriculum and instruction methods. I was wrong, the math curriculum and instruction methods grew worst. Oh yes, my questions were smart questions but I had no idea how much of a threat my questions posed in 2001 to the “implacable, entrenched resistance of the rich, powerful, influential Education establishment (“The Blob”), from the top (Ministry level) to the bottom.”  I still had no idea, about a month later when I met with the director of the school board, when ridicule was employed and when that did not work, my persistence was attacked by attacking my intelligence and knowledge base of grade one math. The rich powerful education BLOB, did its job back in 2001, the first lesson I learned that day, apparently I was stupid and it was heresy for parents to question the horrible math curriculum of 2001. 

You see Mirka, the data bytes of teachers working outside of their field should be published and not hidden behind the curtains of the powerful education BLOB. Nor should the public and parents be asked to gathered the data bytes. You see, we have no access to the data bytes, and the last thing the BLOB is willing to do, is to allow the public and parents access to the data. Too bad the BLOB, is not as open and transparent with the public, the parents and the students. Transformation requires both sides to transformed. However, if parents are being call stupid from the get-go when they questioned the BLOB’s practices and education theories, transformation will never happen.

Posted by Nancy on 12/08 at 10:17 AM

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: