Not Impressed By Deans For Impact

So far, I have a good number of reservations about this initiative — The Science of Learning:

1 Seems like more of a “name-dropping” exercise than a real effort at distilling the problems in teacher education and proposing practical solutions.  The compilation of names of participants, endorsers and corporate sponsors all seems like trying to get a snowball effect going;  as if that will somehow validate the effort. A good number of individuals are of international stature.  Some have their research and books dominating much of the material in the report. I am actually wondering at this late stage — three months later after launch Sept 2015 — how many have by now disassociated?

2 The emphasis on a “collective vision” does not bode well for this project.  It sounds polarizing. 

3 Unfortunately, the problem for deans of education is not to have an appreciation for the science of learning but for the science of teaching.  That is, teaching of teachers to teach, whether explicitly or implicitly.

4 Reading — the Number One learning tool that a student must acquire to get on the education ramp itself — the first AHA success to experience, gets one small sentence in the whole document —  “The advantages of learning to read by phonics are well established.”  We do know that Willingham says that reading is not a “skill”.  What does he call it? We do know that he endorses “balanced literacy”. In contrast, the document has a lot to say about Math.

5 20% of the document is references.  Again, as if some weight of names and references will convince one of the worthiness of the project and validate it.

6 The general tone, layout and communication in the document are not easy to follow or buy into.  Seems like an effort to overwhelm or regroup the forces for teacher ed reform!  This is a frustrating challenge but credibility seems shaky. Very little takeaway, even after two readings.

I’ve read about this organization before.  I’m encouraged to see there’s a group of educators/academics who are interested in pursuing certain truths behind effective instruction, and I wish them well.

Many thanks for this article. I’ve read and shared.  Let’s hope 2016 might shed more truths in the word of education, and that parents might have a bit more say in how they’d like their children educated in Canada (we can only hope

Without accountability,we’ll not get progress.
Parents and children(students) come last.
It’s an organization that serves the adults.

Key question,how can the tax payer get some power?

This discussion seems to confine itself to the idea that better teachers will produce better learning outcomes.  I have been skeptical of this idea for a very long time, as it seems to demand incredible effort from individual teachers.  We all know that teacher burnout is very common.  I advocate for better textbooks, and I mean text books, not a huge amount of individual lessons or units, which must then be organized by each individual teacher.
Teaching is a job that an ordinary person should be able to do well, without working himself or herself into a state of exhaustion.  This used to be possible, back before every teacher became expected to do all the tasks of education. 
The prerequisite for such a state of affairs is a good textbook, for each subject and grade level.  The textbook should be written so that teachers and parents and students can all learn from it, without being confused or overwhelmed by it.  It should be comprehensive and sequential in its presentation of the content to be learned.