An interesting and important question.
A challenge in evaluating teaching at a faculty of education is to determine the impact. The impact are often seen in the classroom during the student teaching practicum period or more likely years later in their career.
Having taught in K-12 schools and still get a chance to do from time to time a well-constucted lesson plan only “works” in its execution in real classrooms with real learners.
It is one thing to “lecture” about group work or direct instruction. It is quite another to use these and other methods in faculties so that student teachers can be successful in the field.
Even then, it can take years to be expert in these.

So how do i know i am doing OK at faculty teaching?
- annual student reviews
- former students and current teachers
- having teachers and other instructors come into my class
- teaching with my door open so passers by can listen and watch at their leisure

Teacher performance does not work as precisely as plumbing. The effects are not seen so quickly, much as wer might wish otherwise.

Perhaps, the professional plumber, who is recertified every 5 years or so, as well as paying a princely sum for the recertification and the right to install the say water tank, are not considered experts, and therefore they need to be regulated and have government overseeing the work of the said plumber and yes it is a revenue source for governments.

But for some reason, teachers requires no government overseeing the professionalism of teachers. Nor, any updating every 5 years, to renew their teaching certificate, or even the requirement to keep up-to-date on the advances in learning, relating to their students. After all, teachers cannot control the make-up of their students, their abilities, strengths and weaknesses from one year to the next, but the least teachers can do, is to keep up with the advances and research in learning.

As one teacher said to me in grade school, thanking me for a stack of research, knowledge on LD advances, and links to increase her knowledge on LD, to improve instruction, to where my child would actually learn in the classroom, as opposed to re-teaching the lessons of the classroom at home, because she became lost within the first 5 minutes of the lesson. Solution, a study guide of one page, to guide her notes and reading, and it became a regular practice for 10 students including my child, for one year. The next year and the year after, I had to repeat the process, in the hope that the teachers would take time, to do some reading, without feeling insulted that I was questioning their expertise.

The professional plumber, don’t mind the increase overseeing of their work by an inspector, because it keeps work and quality standards high, thus keeping their salaries at a higher pay than other skill trades. This does not hold true for the profession of teaching, and all a parent can hope for, is a teacher that wants all of their students to have a solid education, and to reach their full potential. In a letter to the editor, a professor opines, ” It is unfair to tell parents—as one teacher put it—to “get off their behinds” and ensure that their children are properly educated. An educational system that requires significant involvement from caregivers is inherently two-tiered: The children of parents who can afford to invest their time, energy and money in their education succeed, while the children of those parents without these resources languish. Our society is responsible for the provision of high quality K to 12 educational opportunities to all children, regardless of family circumstance.”
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/135232653.html

Why is it, that it is left up to the parents to oversee teachers, and those within the education system are free of being overseen by an inspector of a teacher kind, to ensure students are making steady progress, and achievement, and to open future doors, instead of slamming the future doors of students, because the students have to many gaps in their learning.

So, Mr. Myers, as a result of the method of ‘inspection’ that you describe the teachers use, we have a forty percent illiteracy rate, children entering highschool woefully unprepared to do math, and pathetic writing skills (as I’ve seen in the grade 10 provincial literacy tests).  Meanwhile these same teachers watch but say nothing as the curricula is constantly being watered down.  I would have to conclude that the current method which you describe as a disasterous failure.  I also strongly suspect that you’re trying to defend the status quo for you and your colleges’ benefit; not the children’s.

Please reread carefully.

I did not say that what I do was a method of inspection.
I did not say that others did this.
I did not say it was sufficient.
I did infer that it was challenging but superior to the one shot inspectors of the good old days
In fact when we had school inspectors they were “idiosyncratic” in their comments and negligible in their impact unless there was CLEAR evidence of incompetence.

When I started high school in the early 1960s the high school graduation rate in Canada was about 25%.
Are we better now? YES
Do we need further improvement? YES

But throwing around bombs like “40% illiteracy”: not so if you look at the international PISA results and false claims that my position represents the status quo
- cause damage
- do not improve things
- are incorrect

Perhaps if we stopped fixing blame and started fixing “the system” in a spirit of civility, co-operation, with a least a nod or two to existing evidence, we would be further along.

OK, Mr. Myers, even though I don’t agree with one word you’ve written, we can certainly be civil; it is a two way street btw .

not ONE word?

is the disagreement based on
- facts
- definitions
or
- values

My claims were fact based except for calling for improvement- on which I think we agree (not one word?)
though I offer facts to support my view.

Then again,
to the true believer
no evidence is needed
and to the skeptic
no evidence is sufficient.

Too bad

I remember the school inspector of old, but back than they were called superintendents. Back in my school, quite large and roomy, with 40 desks or so, compared to today, where 25 kids, there is no more personal space left. Kids got to know the superintendent, and he knew our names, and he was a regular at the school, as he was at the other schools. Boots on the ground, John and not sitting in some far away office making decisions from a far.
Sometimes he would sit at the back, watching, and than while we were doing our work, he would go to about 20 desks of so, collecting our note books of different subjects, and sit in the back and review them. Than at the recess break or noon hour, chatted with the teacher, because the note books collected were students who could be doing better. Within a few days, students started to received drill sheets mostly, to be brought home. Actually, it was no big deal and it amounted to 10 minutes or so, but than we rarely had homework, besides studying our spelling, and doing the weekly composition writing. Back than teachers did not fear the inspector, and from where I was sitting, the teacher and inspector were always engaged and alive in conversation, It was odd to see it, because most of my teachers were stern and rarely alive in conversation with us kids in the classroom. But back then, the teachers and the superintendents aim was to have all students at 75 or higher, but they would settle for the minimum 69.  There was no toleration for kids sitting at 60 or below, and they rolled up the sleeves , along with the parents to see what could be done.

I think Bev meant to say, low literacy, and the low literacy rate is now 48 % and climbing, and low numeracy is above 50 percent, and I think it is 51 percent. As for kids who have great difficulties in reading, and are deem illiterate under the official definition, try walking the force pathway that parents are put on to get reading help for their kids, who appear to be normal like other kids. You won’t hear the stories in the newspapers, so the public education gets a free pass, and no one will be held to account. Every year, the stories of the adults who learn how to read, are presented with pictures of the honchos patting themselves on their backs, giving a award or a scholarship for higher learning. There is no one tracking the students who never really learned to read, nor there is no tracking of the parents who packed up and move to another school, across a province, or halfway across the country to get help for their child. There is no tracking for parents who leave the public education system and seek private help. But if one cares to track the students whose parents decided to take action, one will find the students learned to read within a year, and became good readers, from a public education system who said this child will never learn how to read, or always will have major difficulties.

Superintendents of the old, were smart - check and review the actual work of the students, instead of sitting at the back and ignoring all the rich data and observable detail found in student’s work and note books. A grade one student like my child, if he or she went to my school in the 60s, the inspector would have move mountains to get the student up to snuff, by just looking at her work. Today, inspectors looks at the bright and shiny tinsel, and ignore the students sitting in the classroom. No one is looking at the students, but they sure became a major excuse for the failings of the education system, and the agendas within the education system.

the inspectors I remember in the 1950s were different. They were NOT siperintendents.

Remember most kids did not get through high school in those days (OECD reports)- they were different times.

We do not have those kinds of inspectors today.
Perhaps we should have inspectors, but ones that fit today.

One can make of literacy what they may- because we have many definitions for it: enough to confuse.

not some mythical past that never existed.

As for “No one is looking at the students, but they sure became a major excuse for the failings of the education system, and the agendas within the education system.”

They were always a major excuse, usually because of false impressions about race or class or rural kids. NO one looked out for them then.
I know- I was one of them.
I was lucky to have the parents i did.
Most kids then did not.

Let us return to Rod’s original assertion and leave the world of myopic nostalgia.

Maybe in your area, but not where I lived. I would say probably about 85 % graduated, in a semi-rural area in Ontario, where there was strong PTAs who was right in there involve in curriculum, science experiments in the back of the classroom, plants, and whatever animals. Mini libraries in each class, I no doubt well over 500 books on top of a few reference books, plus two big fat dictionaries on a dais, wall maps and a globe. Throw in the TVs, radio and the projectors, the school was well equipped. Now that was my school, there was other schools further down the road, smaller, newer , more modern, but the school that I went to, was the oldest school with the original rather big one room school house, made of stone. And in my day, they were called superintendents, and their were always on the ground, and not in an office. I could go on about the teachers, the principal , but put it this way, problems were solved, working solutions put in place ASAP, and not this business of waiting around six weeks for have a little busing transportation problem solve. I said six weeks, because I waited patiently, and at the end of the six weeks, I track the boss of all bosses at the ministry of education, and my problem was solve by the end of the day. Back in the 60s, there was no bureaucratic red tape, but these days, in schools the safety police would probably take one look at the classroom, and scream germs. Oh yes, janitors clean the classroom, working around all the stuff, and desk tops were clean each day, and not the once a month crap that happens today, or maybe every two months, and when it is done, the kids come home with rashes. What ever spray is being used, far more potent, and no doubt should have a warning label on it.

Yes back to teachers to having supervisors, well in today’s current setup, they are not much good, sitting in their fancy digs at the school board headquarters are they? 

Mythical past? Not in my area, and some old warhorses retired probably at the ministry would attest to that. In the area that I lived in, the adults all look after the kids, and I am telling you it some hard to get away playing hooky, and go fishing where everyone knew everyone else. And kids did, and they would get caught. Teachers care, and they went the extra mile, but that was back in the days the school discipline policies were exactly the same as what was at home. Sure we had the freedom, but as kids we knew exactly what got us in trouble. Call a kid a name at school, or even to used it as an adjective to describe actions, you were in trouble, regardless if no adult was within ear shot. These days, the adults need to hear or see the offending action, in order to do something about it. Being polite and mannerly to the adults in the school was a desire trait, and it did not matter what home you came from, whether your father was a drunk, or who who were, saying Sir and Miss, please and thank you was the order of the day. Now, it is not even a written rule in the school policy, let alone a desire trait.

I would say, inspectors yes, but they need to get out of their offices, and start looking at reality. Even than, they have a tough row to hoe, when the weeds (agendas of adults, policies, safety police) are choking the plants (kids) from learning. And inspectors need to get out and get to know the parents, instead of behind a desk at the board office dealing with problems that should never have left the school, but they all said not their problem.

“of false impressions about race or class or rural kids”

Ought to go look at the false impressions, misconceptions of the kids that get special labels early on, and walk in their shoes, and see if you like being treated that way. It is hard to live with the fact, that other adults around a student, prevents them from failing, because they think they are incapable of doing the task. Even worse, winning hands down, only to be told you can’t move to the next level, and the second place winner is taking your place. Good intentions, sometimes and happens often in school, can do the worse damage to the children with labels.

Inspectors, to look at the many many different things inside a school, and their focus should be on the students, and not the glitter of adults.

For John Myers-Low literacy rates of 40 percent in Canada.

John,it is my view that 35 percent of these problems are manufactured in school boards across Canada.

I am not the only one who thinks that way.

http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/index/Time_to_Reboot.pdf

Several speech pathologists and psychologists in school boards feel the same way,as they are employed by them,they cannot speak on this blog.
Your anger about this truth leaves me mystified.

Where to begin.

If Nancy’s recollection is accurate the 85% grad rate should have been bottled and exported across Canada. National data says otherwise.
In the 1960s to early 70s we went close to 2/3 graduation and have slowly creeped along perhaps a bit up since then.

As for Jo-Anne,
I read this report and can only say.
- literacy rates depend on how literacy is defined.
- poor levels tend to be higher for older people (so much for standards)
- no evidence that the problems were “manufactured in school boards”
- interestingly if I set a standard, the 40% might be accurate, but I lack that power.

My standard would be to read any article in the Globe and Mail for comprehension and analysis of the perspective taken if any.

A decade ago someone in Boston suggested that standard for reading the Boston Globe. Respondents were divided between those who thought that too easy and those who thought that too hard. So setting a standard may not be so easy as some think.

There is also a truism, based on data from the history of policy-making, that to more firmly you set a standard based on a percentage or a number, the harder it is to actually reach. This is because it is too easy to focus on-or fudge-a number and ignore real improvement.

One good thing about the literacy tests in Ontario, and I have changed my mind on this several times, is that it focuses the mind on the importance of literacy.
That is good.
I also encourage my student teachers to apply to mark some of the items. The training they get is really good that they can apply when they teach their own classes.

Is it perfect or even good enough? No.

I too want improvement, but calls to return to a mythical golden age for schools that never existed are misplaced.
We have had these calls in North America since Hilda Neatby’s polemic in the 1950s.
Did not work then. Do not work now.

Merry Christmas to all.

Where to begin.

If Nancy’s recollection is accurate the 85% grad rate should have been bottled and exported across Canada. National data says otherwise.
In the 1960s to early 70s we went close to 2/3 graduation and have slowly creeped along perhaps a bit up since then.

As for Jo-Anne,
I read this report and can only say.
- literacy rates depend on how literacy is defined.
- poor levels tend to be higher for older people (so much for standards)
- no evidence that the problems were “manufactured in school boards”
- interestingly if I set a standard, the 40% might be accurate, but I lack that power.

My standard would be to read any article in the Globe and Mail for comprehension and analysis of the perspective taken if any.

A decade ago someone in Boston suggested that standard for reading the Boston Globe. Respondents were divided between those who thought that too easy and those who thought that too hard. So setting a standard may not be so easy as some think.

There is also a truism, based on data from the history of policy-making, that to more firmly you set a standard based on a percentage or a number, the harder it is to actually reach. This is because it is too easy to focus on-or fudge-a number and ignore real improvement.

One good thing about the literacy tests in Ontario, and I have changed my mind on this several times, is that it focuses the mind on the importance of literacy.
That is good.
I also encourage my student teachers to apply to mark some of the items. The training they get is really good that they can apply when they teach their own classes.

Is it perfect or even good enough? No.

I too want improvement, but calls to return to a mythical golden age for schools that never existed are misplaced.
We have had these calls in North America since Hilda Neatby’s polemic in the 1950s.
Did not work then. Do not work now.

as for anger? misreading of my posts

I am more disappointed in the lack of reference to real evidence and the all-too-easy interpretation of report and advocacy masquerading as research.
For the record
http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/index/Time_to_Reboot.pdf is a useful report

Merry Christmas to all.

No John, it would not have been bottled up, because the education system structure, school boards were many, and work in their separate silos, with few exchanging information and knowledge. The community I lived in was semi-rural, European culture a mix of German, Polish, and other Eastern European ethnic groups, as well as the Canadian born,  It all started to go downhill in the 1970s, on the road to centralization, bigger school boards, standard curriculum, the regulation regime to control students, and parents, the build up of bureaucracy, and all done as the student population declined starting in the late 1970s. Does the Ontario Ministry of Education have the stats of the former boards in Ontario? Yes, but they are useless because the former boards did things differently, and standards were higher. Failed a subject, fail the year. High expectations of all students, along with students having access to the teachers when they needed help, the number of outcomes were lower, but the material was studied in depth, and as well, students knew at the beginning of the year, schedule tests, essays, projects,  at the beginning of the year.

Just a small part, of the bigger picture but I want to stress what students need to know today, is much different than what the students of the 1960s needed to know. What has not change, is the foundation of the 3 Rs and the basic foundational knowledge in the STEM subjects, and other subjects that are cumulative in nature. One cannot pick up a physics paper or a paper on bio-diversity without understanding the basic laws of physics or the meaning of bio-diversity under science. I selected bio-diversity, because the word is being tossed about these days, and has lost its true meaning under the sciences. As a result, the word diversity is focus on, rather than both words bio and diversity. No need to understand the basics of biology, as long as their is lots of diversity.

More importantly language has change dramatically, to where the public education system, and other public sectors have developed their own edubabble or language that takes the wisdom of Solomon to sort out. And for the average person in today’s society, quite the difficult task, and many within the public sector will take full advantage of the various weaknesses and knowledge base of their citizens, to prevent payment of a benefit, to discriminate among groups, or between groups, and to have citizens accept a lower level of service. The inequalities abound and thrive under the conditions when citizens no longer have a well-rounded education, and a solid foundation to stand on.

Dismissing Joanne’s link, is a common among the folks in the public education system, especially when the users of the education system, have been regulated and are devoid of power and options because of the systemic road blocks design to keep the users in their place.

In the report the first sentence, “Canada is turning a blind eye to the low literacy skills of nine million working age adults. In doing so, it is putting future economic growth and social cohesion at serious risk.”  Since than, it is now 11 million, but as the number grows, the road blocks remain in place, because there is many with the education system, that are eager to dismiss the low literacy and numeracy skills for a number of reasons for a number of reasons, but will not look at the negative impact in economic growth and social cohesion.

To dismiss the report, are people who are willing to wait patiently, employers willing to pay people, to read a two page report and wait 10 minutes, and as a result are less productive because they cannot read 500 words a minute, when the best they can do is to read 150 words per minute. For numeracy, employers and others who dismissed the report, are willing to risk errors in calculations, and pay the future costs down the road. People are willing to dismiss the report either it is an opportunity to take advantage of the those will lesser skills, and therefore easier to manipulate, or they truly do believe people will not take advantage of those who are not strong in numeracy and reading.

Now John, how many of the high school students are reading 500 words at minimum per minute? Don’t know, because it is not tested. When I went to high school, it was tested each year, and a special course was arrange for students who fall under 500 words. Another part, was noon hour detentions, where the students were treated to grammar tests, and other writing mechanics, graded, and for the students who did poorly, a six week course on grammar. Motivation for students, to pass the grammar tests and stay out of grammar class.  All conducted and ran by the guidance counselors,  and all students regardless of ability had to take the test, Back than, on the average 60 students for noon hour detention, and sometimes 200 or more students for doing something really against the rules. It was the after school detentions to stay away from, not the noon hour detentions.

The big difference between the 60s and now, 5 year Arts and Science, the 5 and 4 year tech pathway, the 4 year commercial and the 2 year vocational. Each pathway had very different outcomes, but what the students shared is a firmed foundation in the 3 Rs,  that allow students to meet the outcomes with some ease.  Call it mythical, but to dismiss it outright, is to dismiss the collective experiences of the individuals that attended schools where the emphasis was on the 3 Rs, the foundation. As well as the final outcomes of producing consistent scholars, that went on to be important contributors to Ontario’s economy, and a work force that had the skills and abilities to do their job well.

A lot of things have been tossed out over the years, especially in the variety of high school courses, and as a result, much of what was learned in the high schools of the 60s, is now learned at the college level. By the 1990s, home economics, wood shop, mechanics, Latin, history,  economics, law, business administration. geography, calculus, has either been tossed, or reduced to one or two courses under the heading, non-electives.

It only reconfirms my stance, that it is a matter of policy within the public education system, that it is acceptable to have 35 % of their high school graduates with low levels of literacy and numeracy.

It is unlikely, assuming data from that era actually exists, that most students hit the 500 words a minute standard since until the mid 1960s a majority did not go past grade 10.

So how do we improve reading in all its aspects- speed being but one?

Direct instruction of phonemic awareness (phonics) is one, but not only this.

There is a big difference today between graduating high school - that is having a piece of paper saying that you graduated - and actually having the skills we used to expect from a high school graduate.

People I work with tell me that most adolescents, including their own children, are not able to write in an understandable and correct (spelling, punctuation) way when they finish high school. Calculating percentages is a hit or miss game.

That also corresponds to the fact that for back office work companies hire people with a bachelor degree and not high school.
Why? Probably first of all because they can. There is such an inflation of college and university graduates in non-technical areas that they compete for jobs that essentially only require one to be literate, numerate, relatively organized and disciplined (that is show up for work on time and work on what you are supposed to do as opposed to what you prefer to do).
Secondly, because from the high school graduates that do not go to college or university how many do you think are able to read, write and do basic math in a reliable way so that you can trust them with company documents or with letters and documents that go out to clients?

I agree, Europe:  they want to ‘prove’ that our system is doing a great job; yet in our daily lives we can see the inadequacies of graduates.  People defending our educational system then post websites telling us we’re mistaken.  What I don’t get is why are they not responding to private enterprises’ requests to better student skills?  We’re all in it together, and if Canada is losing revenue because the workforce is lacking, it will eventually hit them in their pockets as well—we’re all in this together, eh…