It`s such a war-sometimes I feel the educators are against the children.

Which is ridiculous I know-But????What is it?

Oh my, look at the language that you’re using here. Do you really doubt that educators are against children? There is some very dangerous, and very poorly devised thinking here. M. Dare, make sure that you read your articles very carefully before commenting on them.

And I should read my comments before posting them! “Do you really think that educators are against children?” I started to say, “Do you really doubt that educators have the best interest of children at heart?”

Hey David/Dean/Doug - please point to where M.Dare suggests that “educators are against children?”

If I’m not mistaken that comment came from Jo-Anne but what’s your point and how does it relate to the article?

Just as malaria could not be dealt with effectively until mosquitoes were identified as the causative agent, so too it is necessary to understand that modern teaching methods are actually causing the enormous disparity in children’s academic performance.

Ed Net said it-if you can understand inferences.

The rule of thumb given is much too optimistic.  In a Grade 1 class it is easy to have (already) a 4-5 -year difference, from kids at a pre-k level (just learning to speak) to kids at a Grade 3 or 4 level; Grade 3 classes I’ve worked with in the past few years have always had kids from a K level up to Grade 5 or 6, and by middle school the gap is as many as 10+ years (some K level students are still there, and a few students are reading and writing at a secondary level or better). 

Perhaps Education Next is more accurate as to the U.S. situation. Many U.S. districts have intensive intervention programs in place for students with early difficulties; they offer programs for students with disabilities, and generally provide more resource and special education support than Ontario schools do (mainly because of federal laws in this regard, which override state legislation).  A “Response to Intervention” protocol (for more on this, see http://www.interventioncentral.org)is in place in some states to provide research-based instruction to students who fail to meet expectations before referring them for psychological assessment or special education support.  The details of what is offered are important, but the principle is a good one.

Teaching practices and curricula certainly have an impact, but the full inclusion classroom means that wide gaps are inevitable, as there are many students who need specialized assistance that is different from what can or even should be offered in a regular classroom.  Currently this is the policy of the Ontario Ministry of Education and it is supported by many parents and advocacy groups.  Because it also saves money, it is popular with bureaucrats and politicians.

There are instructional pedagogies that equalize-
that is the point of the article-some students are intuitive about learning to read and spell while most need instruction and if they receive it many can reach several of the other intuitive readers-
That causes a more homogeneous classroom to be realized-but we must start young.
Even young hockey players get very skill specific instruction as they move through the leagues.There are so many examples.I think the article alludes to the infection of discovery learning in the system.That also creates facilitators rather than teachers.

Personally I think it is impossible to teach with any efficiency a class where you have more then 1 grade level difference among students.

First of all, we don’t have a good curriculum in reading and basic math. So there are no standard good texbooks to follow either.
As TDSBNW was saying a few month earlier, the use of textbooks is discouraged.

Secondly we have teachers that have not been trained how to specifically teach reading and basic math, so not only the knowledge does not exist in textbook form to follow but it doesn’t exist in teachers’ minds. Yes, their heart may be in the right place but I think a lot of elementary teachers are not familiar with methods that were proven to have a high rate of success.
Even if they had a homogenous level class such teachers would not be able to teach well for the simple reason they don’t know how to do it.

Ok, let’s say we have good curriculum gelled in textbooks that are available for every student and we have teachers that have solid knowledge of the subject.

Anything more then 2 different levels in a class is impossible because you need to divide your time in so many ways and because these are 7 to 10 year olds that need constant feedback and supervision. In my opinion more than 5 minutes with no feedback they are wandering off task one way or the other.

Even for 2 different levels in a class, you need to have a very not just knowlegeable but also experienced teacher and a very healthy person to be able to day in, day out plan and deliver and pay attention to several different groups. We are not talking a few hours. We are talking every day, 6 hours a day for 10 months. Very few people would be able to pull that off.

We can’t ask teachers to be superman or superwoman. We are kidding ourselves thinking that anybody can deliver under these circumstances.

What we can ask for is a solid, sequential curriculum reflected in textbooks that can be followed step-by-step, teachers that have been specifically trained on how to teach reading or math or the subject they are teaching.  Then we have to somehow figure out a way to orgranize things so that in a class students are not farther apart then a maximum of one grade level.

And one more thing: we need to give the authority to discipline back to the teachers. Within reason, school should be again a place for learning and it should not be considered harassment or unreasonable expectation to demand all students be quiet and pay attention during class time.

For reference, my experience teaching children consists in coaching skiing for three winters in an introduction to racing program to intermediate level skiers 6 to 10 year old. Skiing in some ways is simpler: you can’t fudge it too much; especially with gates, there is built in feedback.

It has been interesting lurking here for a while, but I thought that I would jump in with some thinking around this particular issue.

First of all, I’m a progressive educator. But I’m not the devil incarnate. I’ve been teaching for 28 years and am approaching the end of my formal service to public education.  I believe that children come into the world as learners and they do quite well for quite a few years without any formal schooling. I’m watching my own two youngsters grow into amazingly curious and inventive kids and I look forward to seeing this continue.

I won’t give you my whole philosophy of education here, but I will make a couple of points. First, I don’t agree with everything that has come out over the past number of decades in the name of authentic learning theory. Some of what we find in our schools today represents our best guess as to what might be true about teaching and learning, but we often don’t take the proper amount of time (and money) to fully research the results. Part of that is because we’re dealing with real live human beings and not cells in a lab dish.

But I think that we have made some progress in answering the question, “What is happening when human beings are actually gained in meaningful learning.” We can now answer this question from a neurological point of view, from a psychological point of view, and from an emotional point of view. And all of the evidence points to the fact that, in order to learn something…anything…you need to be connected somehow with the experience. Oh, we can get folks to remember things, and now we know how to get folks to remember things for longer periods of time. But that isn’t learning.

To the point of this particular thread of discussion. Schools are not set up to handle the real deep learning experiences that are going to make a real difference in the students that emerge upon graduation. They just aren’t. I know that because I’m there every day, struggling to try. And there are lots of reasons for that, but I will tell you this: throwing out “modern methods” and returning to the approaches of a time that has long past isn’t going to do it. Throwing our classrooms totally open to student-directed activity isn’t going to do it. It can’t be a battle between progressives and traditionalists (sorry Michael Zwaagstra).

Instead, we need to sit down with each other across this country and talk about what it is we want from our schools…now, in the 21’st century. Right now, we have at least 3 competing goals for education, and I really don’t think its possible to honour all of them.

As long as we continue to talk of schools as if they were these broken, diseased, places where the evil of progressivism finds a home, then we’re not going to get anywhere.

I’m a progressive educator, mainly because I didn’t fare too well in the traditional system. I think that we can re-envision our schools in a way where the battle lines between modern and, what? “pre-modern” are blurred a little and where the absolute best of what we know works can become a major part of what goes on in the lives of our children.

I realize that this is a little broad, but I thought that I would jump in with those initial (and passionate) thoughts.

Stephen Hurley
Teaching Out Loud

Great that you decided to join in the discussion Stephen but the flaw in your philosophy, as passionate as it is, is that after all this time at the front of the classroom and with all of those things you list we know about how children learn, the system can’t guarantee literate and numerate graduates. That’s all most of want.

I can’t speak for the rest of Canada obviously but students with a good grasp of the basics is probably close to what I expect of the education system.

You felt the need to repeat that you are a “progressive” educator. What the heck does that even mean and why does it make you good or worse than other educators here?

After spending 13 years experiencing the system alongside my kids your post it littered with the eduspeak most parents can’t stand.

You’ve clearly made up your mind about what we’re all about here. What about getting back to basics and using proven methods scares you?

It is imperative that one knows who we’re entering into discussion with.

Here is Mr. Hurley’s website

http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/stephen-hurley/2010/12/5/teaching-out-loud-0

I agree Chuck-and teaching Reading and Spelling is not an ideology it falls in the realm of science.That is what Dr.Keith Stanovich so frequently alluded to-teachers in their 1 year preparation course are guided to use their opinion.

Opinion obviously doesn`t cut it-as one McGill University prof tweeted on the Huffington Post yesterday-if Canada is so good in Reading why is it her students can`t spell and parse a sentence.

More smoke and mirrors.

I love the way Stephen Hurley speaks down to us-the research findings are the voice-Dr.`s get it!
If teachers want to escalate the public perspective,let them defer to research-not every single PH.D. thesis that finds a way to confirm a hunch but gold standard research.

Mr. Hurley,

I’m glad to see you feel that it is important to hold on to the methods that are effective teaching tools and not ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’.  I have always found it interesting that ‘progressive’ teachers (to use your term) constantly profess their adherence to effective teaching practices - as long as they are ‘progressive’.  Funny, 25 years ago, I didn’t find the same sympathy among your lot when all the ‘traditional’ teaching methods were gradually being removed from the classroom - effective or not.

It is interesting to see that you admit that all ‘progressive’ methods are not effective.  What that means today is that students are not ‘faring’ well in the progressive system either.  You speak passionately about the need to stop calling classrooms ‘diseased’ places.  Maybe you should refrain from ‘pontificating’ - for that is the way parents react to your words - and realize that such an attitude is as equally unproductive.

Had you ever thought that what is needed is a hybrid - taking the most effective practices of the two systems?  Have you never noticed in your 28 years in the classroom, that the most capable, literate and intellectually keen students are always the ones with the best grasp of the basics?  Have you not noticed that these students typically got their grounding at home, not in the schools?  Do you now realize that is why most parents are ticked off with your pithy remarks about ‘progressivism’?

Hmmm…Chuck, I only pointed out that I was a progressive educator (something that I don’t usually do) because I took the time to venture downtown on Saturday to listen to Michael speak. He began by ridiculing the progressive side and pointing to that way of thinking as a type of enemy of quality.

You know, I’ve been teaching most of my life, have been immersed in educational research (a difficult area) for the past ten years, taught at a Faculty of Education and have really tried to develop innovative programs in the schools that I’ve been in. And I, in no way, consider myself to be an expert. In fact, I feel less confident now about some things that I did when I began.

I’m not here to ridicule your position. I’m here to understand it and maybe offer some other points of view. I’m not trying to speak down to anyone. All I’m trying to say is that,even as an educator, I struggle with some of the ideas on both side of the arguments. I’m hoping that my ideas and opinions are rooted in classroom practice and thoughtful reflection of that practice.

I’m also a parent with children that are about to enter a system that I think needs to change…a great deal. I want my children to enter a system that helps them become literate and conversant with the world…one that respects the value of learning the basics, but goes beyond that to the type of learning where they learn to think deeply and critically about the world.

Our educational system (school system) has never been able to guarantee literate and numerate graduates. Ever since colleges and universities started developing more open admission policies, there have been complaints about kids not being ready. So the problem is not new, but I think that there are new challenges, and possibly new ways of addressing the challenges..

As far as research is concerned—there’s plenty of it out there. Some of it is even good. But, I think that research needs to be tested more than it is before we jump on bandwagons flying the banner of educational salvation.

So, yup, I decided to state my opinion in a place where I haven’t felt that comfortable. And yes, I do some work for the Canadian Education Association. I’ve also written for Edutopia in the States (http://www.edutopia.org) and I read a lot of educational research journals, much to my wife’s chagrin!

For some reason, after not doing very well in school myself, I have found that, in the past few decades, this is where my heart is.

So, I didn’t drop in here to argue or say that I know more than you. I probably know less than some of you, but I still love this place we call school and I come here every day hoping that parents and teachers can work together to make it a better place.

Myself for one see Mr Hurley as a good guy.
I like this posting and see that as advocates for research based practice we may know far more that you if you have been hanging out at OISE-

Cognitive ed research division at the University knows what`s right-they say-“the building is divided’.
Those that train teachers REFUSE to adhere to the empirical research.

Thanks Mr.Hurley.

Mr.Hurley,putting you up to speed with the research-succinctly-

Also,the entirety of the SQE website-

Federally Funded Research
Principles of Reading Instruction Based on the Findings of Scientific
Research on Reading

These principles have been distilled from the findings of more than 30
years of research studies under two very expensive federally funded
programs: the $200 million in studies conducted under the direction of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and the
$1 billion Project Follow Through Study. The research indicates that, to
be most effective, these principles should be taught in sequence:

  1. Teach phonemic awareness directly in kindergarten. Phonemic
awareness is the understanding that spoken words and syllables are made
up of sequences of elementary speech sounds.

  2. Teach, explicitly and in isolation, the single speech sound-spelling
represented by each letter or letter combination. Provide practice in
recognizing these speech sound-spelling relationships in decodable
text.

  3. Teach frequent, highly regular speech sound-spelling relationships
systematically progressing from easier to more difficult, and provide
practice reading them daily, first in isolation and then in the context
of words and sentences.

  4. Teach students directly how to sound out words by blending the
words’ speech sound-spellings together sequentially from left to right,
and then provide practice using words composed of only those speech
sound-spelling relationships that have been systematically taught.

  5. Provide connected, decodable text for students to use to practice
the speech sound-spelling relationships they have learned.

  6. Teach reading comprehension using interesting teacher read stories
that include words most students have not yet learned to read, but
which are part of their spoken vocabulary.

  7. Teach decoding and comprehension skills concurrently but separately,
until reading becomes fluent such that comprehension skills learned
through teacher-read literature can be applied to the students’ own
reading once they become fluent decoders.

Thanks for this Jo-Anne. And you’re right, although I didn’t teach language arts at the faculty, I know that there was very little instruction in some of these skill areas.

What do you think of the work that the numeracy and literacy secretariat is doing with teachers and schools in Ontario?

Based on my opinion-shameful disregard for the empirical research-

I was at an ed show in New York last week and a firm that does research was on the Agenda with the key person at the Secretariat last year and said they could not believe with the mounds of universal research on phonemic awareness that it was not viewed as an imperative building block for language acquisition by the Ministry of Education.

It`s because the problems are as Malkin`s post yesterday alluded-the instruction of Reading is an infection and it keeps spreading because the Universities keep spreading it.
My God,look at Keith Stanvich`s illustrious career-they just ignore him-and he is an OISE guy with research grants linked to NICHD-
He must have scratched his head and thought he was going crazy-
I just do not get it-other than the fact it is ideology driven rather than research driven.
Every ego has a say,which is why I loved your posting-a human being,curious and open to learning.
This is indeed peculiar in Education-their souls seem to be missing in action.

I just downloaded Keith’s collaboration “How Teachers Would Spend Their Time Teaching Language Arts” last night. I like his work, and look forward to reading this piece in light of your comments. Thanks again Joanne!!!

Off to class…

stephen

Thanks for your response Stephen. I appreciate it, but you have to understand what it feels like for parents who have heard what you’re saying over and over and over and still want the same thing they’ve always wanted.

The labels of “progressive” are just moot to me. Means absolutely nothing if at the end of a student’s time at school they still can’t read beyond a grade 7 level or to simple arithmetic.

I recently had the occasion to sit with a young man, not yet 30 years old who told me that he had always been a solid “D” student and had no clue how he got through school. He admitted to being socially promoted through the years.  His passion had always been computers and he did manage to get into a college program which he came out of with a computer programming diploma.

The reason I was meeting with him was because he’s attempting to start his own business and would like to put some proposals together for project initiatives for our municipality, plus apply for some grants currently available from both the feds. and provincial government.

This young man and budding business owner can’t read or write well enough to a) put a proposal together, b) fill out grant application forms.

What’s absolutely stunning to me is that this fellow has absolutely no idea of what his strengths are, what talents he possesses or how to market himself beyond his technical skills.

He’s always looked for someone to help him rather than learn to do it himself because his history is based on being pushed through and depending on someone to help him rather than manage himself well enough to forge on ahead with his future…whatever that holds.

Stephen - in your opinion what should parents expect as an accountability measure from progressive education if we have no idea what we want from it?

Just thought to add from a parent’s perspective, that many of the progressive education policies do not effectively address the education component of a student. Progressive education policy takes bits and pieces of the empirical research, formulate policy around the bits and pieces based on ideology, and certainly not on the science. 

By just reviewing the site of Stephen Hurley and the new revamped site of the CEA,  it certainly speaks volumes on education equity issues, by reworking the science and the stats to fit the equality goals that are front and center in today’s public education system.  As Chuck has stated, “....  Stephen but the flaw in your philosophy, as passionate as it is, is that after all this time at the front of the classroom and with all of those things you list we know about how children learn, the system can’t guarantee literate and numerate graduates. That’s all most of want.”  Most parents, if not all want their children to become good if not excellent in reading, writing and numeracy. What parents want, are educational policies that speaks far less on exposure,  opportunities and equality, and far more on the essential foundation skills that are the key to understanding, opening doors of opportunities and creating a truer picture of equality, despite that each and every individual, are born with their own unique make-up, and environmental factors that impacts the individual.

Hurley writes in one post, “For some reason, after not doing very well in school myself, I have found that, in the past few decades, this is where my heart is.”  And in his blog, he writes: “You know, in retrospect, I discovered one of my life’s great passions in Grade Five; I was ten years old. It was 1968 and the education landscape in Ontario was starting to look a little bit different. That September, I was placed in the new open concept wing of the school that I had been attending since Kindergarten. I arrived on the first day to discover that desks had been replaced by work tables, wall-to-wall carpets had been installed over the tile floors and, most intriguing for me, record players had been replaced with cassette tape recorders, each with an external microphone! ”
http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/stephen-hurley/2010/11/2/passion-and-purpose-public-schools

Perhaps not doing well in school can be contributed to the open concept school and the tape recorders. And of course the demise of grammar, writing essentials policies, to be replaced by the new technology of tape recorders. I am only a few years older than Stephen, and yet I did exceptionally well in an Ontario school that made sure each and every student had a firm educational foundation, including the essentials in reading, writing and numeracy. I did exceptionally well, considering the fact that I have a learning disability in an era where LD was not formally recognized in public education. Our school had their fair share of technology, including televisions in each room. but not tape recorders.

As Europe has stated, ” What we can ask for is a solid, sequential curriculum reflected in textbooks that can be followed step-by-step, teachers that have been specifically trained on how to teach reading or math or the subject they are teaching.  Then we have to somehow figure out a way to orgranize things so that in a class students are not farther apart then a maximum of one grade level.”

I will add, that ability grouping to be dusted off and put back into practice, as it was in my days of schooling. But than again, common sense in the public education system, has never been a quality that the system strives for. As Joanne states, “just do not get it-other than the fact it is ideology driven rather than research driven.
Every ego has a say,which is why I loved your posting-a human being,curious and open to learning.
This is indeed peculiar in Education-their souls seem to be missing in action.”

There is nothing “progressive” whatsoever about the education our children receive in most public schools.

Terminology is a big part of the problem.

“Progressive” to put is nicely is just a label and meaningless by itself.
To put is less nicely “progressive” is a marketing term used to keep parents confused for as long as possible and avoid accountability for as long as possible.

There is nothing “progressive” about having elementary teachers that have not been trained in how to successfully teach reading, writing and basic math.
Let’s not even mention elementary teachers that make spelling mistakes themselves and are not quite sure about fractions.

fromEurope says, “There is nothing “progressive” whatsoever about the education our children receive in most public schools.”

I totally agree. I also think that today is the first day that I’ve ever used the word progressive in my own writing. Again, it was only after Michael used the term on Saturday that I recognized that I should probably use his language to be honest about my perspective. Kind of leaves me a little vulnerable, doesn’t it? Oh, well, I can take it!!!

Mr Hurley, what do you think of the teachers’ unions in NA?

Bev, you first! )

Stephen

why?

Just kidding, Bev.

I think that teacher unions (they were called associations when I began) do a very good job at what they are supposed to be doing. As Michael pointed out on the weekend, their job is to look after their members, and they have done that quite nicely, thank you very much.

That said, I have not always agreed with some of the direction that our unions have taken. I can’t speak for the entire continent, but in my own local situation, I can see where parents may have reason to believe that unions aren’t acting in the best interest of the children.

But unions are made up of teachers, and there is almost a built-in conflict in trying to live both lives…as a member of a collective union and as a teacher working in a school.

I agree with many who recognize that schools seem to be designed for adults and not for children.

My own teacher union spends a good deal of time and resources to promote professional learning among its membership, and that’s a good thing.

I’m not sure, however, whether we’ll ever shake the memories (both inside and outside the profession) of the labour actions that have been part of our fairly recent history.

It may be time for a new type of organization, but I can’t imagine what that would look like.

stephen

If your union is promoting professional learning, have there been noticeable improvements in EQAO test scores in your area?
When you say there are bad memories, are you referring to the years when the Conservatives were in power in Ontario?
If the built-in conflict is as prevalent, as you suggest, then why don’t the teachers speak up and take on the union; also the MOE for forcing such bad curricila down the teachers’ throats; and BofE to take direct action against all the bullying and voilence at today’s schools?  The teachers’ silence is deafening…

Mr.Hurley is new to the site Bev-Don`t scare him away-he sounds sympathetic.

Your anger won`t assist-think Obama and the tax cuts-disgusting as the deal is-he got one-this has to be a deal that works for the parents and teachers and I agree with you,the Unions could be helpful by wanting to enhance the teacher`s perception in the public.

Personally,I think a Union and teachers is simply disgusting-that`s the best thing about Charter schools,the teachers work to help every child attain their potential.However,they are luring the Charters and if they come in we`ll see the spoilage again.

“I’m not sure, however, whether we’ll ever shake the memories (both inside and outside the profession) of the labour actions that have been part of our fairly recent history.

It may be time for a new type of organization, but I can’t imagine what that would look like.”

Is it not an understatement on your part??  What memories are needed to be shake?  As for conflicts, is it really just as you have stated, “But unions are made up of teachers, and there is almost a built-in conflict in trying to live both lives…as a member of a collective union and as a teacher working in a school. ”  I think it is much more than that, especially when teachers are faced with conflicting agendas of the unions, teachers’ colleges and the other powerful education arms that influence the direction of the individual schools and the staff. Much more, when the education system is designed for the adults, and it becomes a handy excuse for the educrats to blame the system if Little Suzie is failing to learn. No one seems to be accountable to the students, the parents,  or the taxpayers. And lastly, last time I check, the silence of the teachers’ unions and the individual teachers are an obvious sign of keeping the status-quo and are rather happy with the current system where everyone is accountable to each other, except no one has to be accountable to the students and their parents.

FYI, Joanne Jacobs, the top-ranked education blog, has had two posts recently related to the Education Next article and to the issues of differentiation, ability grouping and grouping by instructional level.  The commenters there are a cross-section of mostly very well-informed and involved parents, teachers, university faculty and interested citizens.

See here:
http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/11/can-differentiation-work/
and
http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/11/we-know-how-to-teach-black-kids/

I remember conflict between unions and Conservatives as well as unions and NDP. I don’t think that most teachers think too much about the conflict. There really isn’t a critical mass around new images of association.

I’ve just started an initiative over at CEA that seeks to raise the voices of individual teachers and highlight the work and ideas that they have about this profession. We don’t often have a chance to do that, so hopefully we can build some energy around that.

The thing that I react to most when it comes to working in a union is that “teachers” and “parents”, for that matter, are often portrayed as this monolithic organism. All teachers are thought to think the same way because they are teachers. Well, that’s just not true. There are many of us who dream of a better school system and actually get together to talk about it.

You don’t often find the media going to individual teachers for reactions. They tend to go to organizations like yours, PFE, and the teachers unions. Individual voices often get lost in the collective din!

Jo-Anne, quite frankly, I think that the only comment from me which may have sounded a bit angry was when I said that the teachers’ silence on many grave issues is deafening—actually their silence answers most of my queries, except do the achers unions’ programmes have any impact on the test scores in Mr. Hurley’s area.  This is a reasonable question.  I think that we’re not used to asking ‘normal’ quesitons when it comes to public education—everyone’s worried about offending someone.  In the meantime children are suffering…

“No one seems to be accountable to the students, the parents,  or the taxpayers. And lastly, last time I check, the silence of the teachers’ unions and the individual teachers are an obvious sign of keeping the status-quo and are rather happy with the current system where everyone is accountable to each other, except no one has to be accountable to the students and their parents.”

You’re right Nancy. As Stephen hasn’t yet answered D. Sing’s question as to accountability, I’d like to add to that question and ask Stephen if (and who) he believes is accountable to parents and students?

Accountability? Well, I’m just on my way to a meeting, but let me throw this one back to the group (and I haven’t really offended by anyone here, although some of my comments made during recess and lunch hour, may have seemed a little rushed).

My question, and this is one that I’m really thinking about these days: “Is there a difference between accountability and responsibility?” If so, do we sometimes mean responsibility when we use accountability?

later…

Getting back to FromEurope’s very well-reasoned reflections on the need for focused and sequential instruction, and for grouping and curricula that support such instruction, the challenge is to develop a workable alternative to the current reality.

  Pace Malkin, it is not the case that instructional methods cause the huge disparity in student achievement: students enter school with those differentials already in place. What good instructional protocols can do is have some effect on narrowing the gap and promoting maximum development of students’ potential, whatever their limitations or challenges. 

Unfortunately, longitudinal data show that the gap between higher and lower-performing students is exacerbated, not diminished, by schooling (the so-called “Matthew Effect” is one example). The longer students attend school, the greater the gap becomes.

In part this is because we do not provide opportunities for the most challenged students to develop the foundation skills necessary to progress. Our failure to meet these students’ needs has a ripple effect on opportunities for others to learn, besides being a serious equity issue for the most vulnerable.

Good instructional programs can make a huge difference, although there are no pedagogies yet developed that will ensure equal outcomes or completely close the gaps (the best results so far have been bringing the tail end of the distribution up to the 50th percentile, or midpoint —a spectacular result but far from equalizing privileged and less-privileged learners).

But the full inclusion model means that many students who cannot participate in or benefit from those excellent instructional programs are nevertheless part of the class. They cannot participate, yet they cannot be excluded. What is the teacher to do?  I’ve seen outstanding teachers forced to abandon highly effective teaching methods and materials because of this very situation.

Picture a six-year-old in Grade 1 whose ability to understand spoken language and ability to communicate are at an 18-month level. That child is not going to benefit from much of what goes on in the classroom. Typical children in such situations experience much frustration, which manifests itself in rages and violent outbursts – biting, kicking, throwing chairs, screaming. Sometimes the child has a known medical issue, but in most cases with young children the problem is not diagnosed, the waiting list for specialists is years long, and in any case no special services are available in school.  Even one such child in a classroom means that the teacher’s attention must constantly be on that student – two, three or four such students can seriously impact the ability of the teacher to provide appropriate instruction to the rest of the class. Administrators are often unwilling to deal with these cases and teachers must somehow keep the child in class and try to prevent mayhem, not always successfully. Appropriate support personnel are rarely available. They have fallen victim to budget cuts (funny, highly-paid central bureaucrats have not experienced a similar attrition – rather the reverse).

These kids deserve appropriate intervention, right away. Much is now known about effective treatment for specific language impairment, developmental disabilities, autism, childhood mental health problems and more. But these are not part of the school system and parents rarely know what help to seek or where to find it. They also may not be able to afford it if they do know.

In days of yore, such children were excluded from school, or were provided segregated programs, but this is no longer the case, and laws in place now would not permit a return to those “solutions” (which did not work all that well at the time, anyway). Cognitive science has progressed since then, and effective teaching technologies for many conditions are now well documented, if not well known.

I don’t think we will see a day soon where students in an elementary classroom are within one instructional grade level unless we totally re-organize schools on the basis of instructional level, not age.  This would require a lot of marketing – many, many parents would be averse to having their children in the same class as kids much older or younger.  Such an information campaign might be successful – but it would need to overcome a lot of resistance to the idea.

Bandying terms like “progressive” or “traditional” is not particularly useful: the terms lack operational definition and connote widely different things to different readers.  Looking forward, the challenge is how to make a full inclusion school system work for all students?  It will require changes in staffing and organization, but unless reformers can think of solutions that address the inclusive reality in a practical way, I doubt the curricular and instructional changes desired have any chance of being realized.

Thanks for Joanne Jacobs blogs-

The one about teaching black kids is right on the minute-
schools that neglect teaching children to read ARE crack houses.My hero every body is sick of Dr.Reid Lyon refers to it as educational malpractice.

Crack houses is better-

If your union is promoting professional learning, have there been noticeable improvements in EQAO test scores in your area?

There certainly has been in my area. The PD that the union puts on (sometimes under contract to the MOE) is of the same sort as the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat and OFIP are requiring. 

You would hate it.  It’s very much in the “constructivist” vein—holistic reading and writing instruction, Writers’ Workshop, differentiation, reading “strategies” (just don’t sound out words, please—use other strategies), using manipulatives in math, and so on. Also, lots of journaling—math journals, reflection journals, you name it.

This however is what gets EQAO scores up—lots of student writing (grammar and spelling don’t count), expressing their opinion (facts and knowledge don’t count), “explaining their thinking” (being correct in mathematics does not count), and so on.

Teaching spelling, math facts, algorithms, proper paragraph form and so forth will not yield any improvement in EQAO—more likely the opposite.

So yes, PD for teachers in these things has significantly raised EQAO scores—in fact spectacularly so in two schools I’ve worked in recently.  To get this result, one school *stopped* teaching explicit phonics (a good linguistic phonics program), spelling, math facts and problem-solving, and formal paragraph writing. When they stopped doing those things their scores zoomed up.

Food for thought.

I can`t take it!

The test is a set up-
Why would a board like Keewatin Patricia with a 43% success in Reading(WITHOUT SPECIAL ED)-“it`s because our kids are First Nations” get such a lousy score then-I know they uSe Reading Recovery and BL…

Why do they get away with that?

Well, TDSBNW, it sounds like EQAO is just as messed up as the curricula now being used. 
You implied that I would hate it.  Do you like it?

Mr. Hurley, accountability, responsibility, liability, answerability.  They’re all synonyms, so please take your pick.

You implied that I would hate it.

I was implying that you would hate the PD. The “it” refers back to the nearest noun or noun clause of the same gender, number and case, thus to “the PD that the union puts on.”

I didn’t get to EQAO until farther down the comment.

Where tests are concerned, I prefer ones with demonstrated psychometric validity.  “Holistic assessments” of the EQAO kind lack both reliability (the near-guarantee that similar results will be found regardless of who is the grader) and validity (the close correlation between what is on the test and what is purported to be measured).

One problem in the education debate is a general confusion about types of tests, what they are, what the results mean, and so on.  You certainly expect a physician to order the tests that will shed light on whatever presenting problem you have.  Educational testing is not quite at the level of medical testing, but there are quite specific ways to measure a range of skills and knowledge with reasonable accuracy.

Holistic testing has value but I don’t think it provides the sort of data that is needed to measure student learning or system performance. It is also highly subjective and because the items are almost all new every year and are not extensively field-tested, the data lack year-to-year statistical comparative possibilities.  You can’t say for sure if outcome trends mean anything because the data from year to year are not statistically comparable.

You are very calm and accepting TDSNW-Is that because you can`t imagine a synchronized change for the good of the children.

We know the disasters are mainly grown K-3.

I thank you for your input but I do know the fear teachers have at speaking out against the system-I have met some of you-you have all become so matter of fact about it.Strange.It must be the Union…

“Mr. Hurley, accountability, responsibility, liability, answerability.  They’re all synonyms, so please take your pick”.

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one, especially on the accountability/responsibility one. Actually, I’m not even sure that the last one is a word.

But I will get back to the question that was asked…I will!

It’s a word, and they’re all synonyms.  Please use your dictionary

Why the grammar lesson TDSBNW and why would you imply that I don’t like PD days?

“The thing that I react to most when it comes to working in a union is that “teachers” and “parents”, for that matter, are often portrayed as this monolithic organism. All teachers are thought to think the same way because they are teachers. Well, that’s just not true. There are many of us who dream of a better school system and actually get together to talk about it.

You don’t often find the media going to individual teachers for reactions. They tend to go to organizations like yours, PFE, and the teachers unions. Individual voices often get lost in the collective din! “

Funny thing, the media often does get the reactions of the individual teachers, But what is stated in the public forum is a repeat of the education systems goals, and not their own personal beliefs. For teachers to speak out, and openly criticized the education system on a host of education topics from any parts of the education arms, is risking one’s career. I have observed in the last 10 years in the province that I live in, that teachers are penalized for speaking out in a very public way. Teachers are told to work within the system, just like parents are told, there is a proper procedure to follow, if a parent has a concern. The public education system is the entity that eats up anyone for not following procedure and protocol.

As stated, ” There are many of us who dream of a better school system and actually get together to talk about it. ”  Standing from where I am, looking in - it sure seems to be the opposite, where it is all about keeping the status-quo, and pushing all the problems under the rug. Out of sight - Out of mind.

As for accountability and responsibility - two different meanings. Having responsibility is a duty or an obligation that infers to the state, quality or fact being responsible. Having accountability, is being responsible to someone or for some activity. We all have responsibilities, but accountability does not necessarily follow the responsibilities that one has. In the public education system, it is the accountability to the children, parents and the taxpayers that is lacking, and not the responsibilities that the public education system has been responsible for over 100 years.

In your last post, ” Holistic testing has value but I don’t think it provides the sort of data that is needed to measure student learning or system performance. It is also highly subjective and because the items are almost all new every year and are not extensively field-tested, the data lack year-to-year statistical comparative possibilities.  You can’t say for sure if outcome trends mean anything because the data from year to year are not statistically comparable.”  Holistic testing is an easy way for the system to avoid accountability on issues such as reading, writing and numeracy, and still meet one’s responsibilities.

Nancy, with all due respect, I disagree with you. Using holistic testing is a deliberate way for educrats not to their responsibilities.

Bev, it is the design of the public education system, to where responsibilities under the legal umbrella are clearly defined, and accountability is not clearly defined, and in fact kept deliberately vagued for a reason. The reason is, based on court rulings regarding education suits. Educators or for that matter school boards and education ministries at the present time in Canada, are found to be responsible in carrying out their duties, if they have put an effort to change things for the student, school. The efforts are counted, and not if the efforts are effective for the student, or the school. 

One way of putting it, is to used the doctor scenario. What would happened if a doctor decided all his patients with broken arms, will only received a sling, and no plastered casts?  He would be sued for malpractice, and be held accountable for not following best practices. Effort would not even be considered, and yet in the education world, effort is what is needed, to avoid the accountability of best practices and of course the vagueness of the accountability in the school acts helps to avoid the accountability.

A few years ago, I discovered while researching the legal angles, that the national teachers’ federation and the national principals’ federation, actually have reports on their sites, discussing the legal aspects of children who have learning problems. How much effort is needed to avoid law suits by parents. According to them, not much. It is probably the reason why public schools in any of the provinces do not provide the correct reading, writing and numeracy remediation, and generally accommodations are used to show effort.

But the public education system’s day in court is coming. I fully expect a national class-action suit, where they will be found accountable for not using best practices such as what Joanne has cited, for the identified LD children pass and present. It is just a matter of time, because far too many of the LD population are graduating with very low skills in reading, writing, and numeracy. I believe it is malpractice on the public education system’s part, and the system should be held accountable, just like the doctor who decided to used slings, and not plastered casts.

>>You are very calm and accepting TDSNW-Is that because you can`t imagine a synchronized change for the good of the children.

We know the disasters are mainly grown K-3.

I thank you for your input but I do know the fear teachers have at speaking out against the system-I have met some of you-you have all become so matter of fact about it.Strange.It must be the Union…
<<
Jo-Anne all of us here are angry at the current system and for good reason.

However, Jo-Anne put yourself in the shoes of these good teachers. These are the people that are aware of what’s happening.

The ones that are not aware have it much easier. They can imagine themselves to be making a difference and very seldom feel guilty.

Can you imagine what they feel when they start thinking about what little difference they manage to make every day through blood, sweat and tears compared to what probably most of these teachers know would be achievable if they were not set up for failure by the way the system is organized?

This apparently calm and accepting demeanor is probably some sort of psychological self-defense mechanism when one becomes desensitized in order to survive and not become depressed.

If I may throw my two cents in - just because two words are synonymous, it doesn’t mean that they are interchangeable.  Teachers are responsible for the presentation of a certain curriculum and helping students understand the material.  If they do not perform as required, they should be held accountable (to supervisory officers? the public? the OTC?)

Mr. Hurley’s point, well taken I might add, is that if teachers lived up to their responsibilities, then there would be no need for accountability.

My question then, Mr. Hurley - given teachers are individuals, and not clones; some will be better at presentation, etc, than others; some will bear responsibility better than others - will we then ever to be able to get rid of accountability?  I know this question has become more wordy than I intended.  Since there will always be ‘bad apples’, will we always need some watchdog?

Mr. Hurley was asked a question by D. Sing, I for one wasn’t looking to play 20 questions Stephen.

Since educators have our children for roughly 5 hours of every day of their elementary and secondary educational lives do educators have a responsibility to account for educating those children?

Pretty clear question.

One trick of educators have honed over the years is turning a question asked of them back to the parents. It’s
translation for parents who have been their is to a) stall,
b) put the focus on the parent NOT his or her self. c) never answer the question.

I like this question, Wayne. It’s interesting, I didn’t start hearing the word “accountability” in my own teaching career until the mid 80’s. I’m not sure whether it coincided with the general accountability movement in the non-school world or not, but I do recall that it was suddenly on the lips of everyone. And it still is.

I think that we will always need to protect our profession, and our children, from those that don’t take their responsibility seriously. It will always be possible to “work to rule” in this profession and that is, in part, due to the nature of our collective agreements. They clearly lay out the rules of “engagement” and, since the labour disputes of the ‘90’s (I think that it was the 90’s!), the separation of management and labour (administrators and teachers) has added a level of tension to what were once, in most cases, pretty good working relationships in schools.

So, I think that we will always need a system to make sure that, as individuals and as a profession, we are maintaining high levels of quality. I suppose on an individual teacher level, that’s the accountability arm of teacher evaluation.

We played with exit exams for faculty of education grads a few years back, but that only lasted a couple of years. Then we had mandatory professional development courses, but that was given up in return for regular teacher appraisal.

I can’t imagine a system without some sort of measure…not in this day and age.

But one question that comes to mind from Wayne’s post has to do with the types of accountability measures that are in place to move the entire profession forward. Individual teachers can develop their knowledge base and become more proficient, but how do we ensure that, as a profession, we are taking into account and putting into practice what we know works best. In other words, how do we increase the quality of the entire teaching/learning enterprise?

Now, I’m the one who is becoming wordy!

stephen

Sorry Chuck, I wasn’t avoiding that question: Since educators have our children for roughly 5 hours of every day of their elementary and secondary educational lives do educators have a responsibility to account for educating those children?

My answer is as simple as the question: Yes. And not only teachers, but the entire system has a responsibility to each and every child that walks through its doors!

hmmm.  Here’s a grammar lesson for Mr. Hurley, since I’ve been tutored (thank goodness!!). 
“...each and every child who (not that) walks through its doors!”  When referring to a human, it’s who/whom, not that, which is used so often.
Actually, grammar lessons are good—we all learn, and for goodness sakes, let’s read blogs carelfully and edit our own before posting!  (I’m a culprit of not doing the above).

I sit corrected! And I actually went through a very stringent program of grammar in middle school! I’m so embarrassed.

BTW, we’ve spent all of this “time” together today; please call me Stephen

Bev, is this really necessary?
As much as TDSBNW was condescending,I feel personally that jabs don`t work-maybe something intelligent,informative and mediating would?

The issue is so important as you have so frequently and eloquently mentioned.

carelfully?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist! All in good fun.

“I like this question, Wayne. It’s interesting, I didn’t start hearing the word “accountability” in my own teaching career until the mid 80’s. I’m not sure whether it coincided with the general accountability movement in the non-school world or not, but I do recall that it was suddenly on the lips of everyone. And it still is.”

I heard the word accountability since I was young. But back in the late 50s and 60s in Ontario, parents expected teachers to be accountable for their actions in the classroom. There was mutual respect between the educators and parents in the Ontario semi-rural community that I lived in. When a child was having learning problems, both the school and the parents worked together to find solutions. Although the school had much more autonomy than the schools of today, the school of the late 50s and 60s were not burdened with the demands of unions, or the edicts from central control. The teachers were free to used whatever methods they felt best to used. I heard the word again, when I became a parent in the 1970s. But throughout the 70s and 80s, I never paid too much attention to the parents that were complaining that their children are suffering or some other aspect of education. What was lacking in the education system, I took upon myself to teach my children grammar, spelling rules, and a firm foundation in basic arithmetic, thinking it was my responsibility. Secretly, I was thinking whatever happen to teaching children the basics, the essentials needed to advanced and navigate through society. It was not until the late 1990s, that the education system caught my attention, because of my youngest.

My nightmare is basically the same story of other parents who have children with learning disabilities. A common response from the educrats, when parents are asking for help for their children in the early grades, even though they are still passing, but just barely - is the response of,  it is the parent’s responsibility to teach your child the basics in reading, writing and numeracy, along with the rejoinder of the parent being the blame for not providing a enrich literacy environment, and all the rest of the edubabble. When I first heard it, I was flabbergasted to where I could not form a response to the principal. The next three times, in the primary grades I was eager to respond to defend my parent abilities, and pushed for an assessment for my child.

This experience is common to parents who have children that are having learning difficulties in the primary grades. I am not an isolated case, where parents are told it is their responsibility and not the public education system. It is probably the number one reason, why reading specialists and specialized tutors are fully booked, and have waiting lists. For parents who lived in rural parts of Canada, there is no luxury of seeking private services, since there is few if any type of private educational services. This brings me to another problem area of accountability, when the education system tells a parent that it is their responsibility to help your child to read, yet the public education system does not provide the parent with the correct knowledge that is needed to see progress in reading. If only I had a computer when my youngest was in grade 1, I probably would have found SQE who does provide reading help and the how-tos’  for frees.

Now, I have a question and Bev put the bee in my bonnet - When did the public education system abdicate their responsibilities and felt justified to passed the responsibilities to the parents, and at the same time eroding the power of the parents had in the 50s and 60s?

That’s a powerful story, Nancy! I think I’m beginning to understand some of the dynamic of this group. (That is meant as an empathetic statement, not a condescending one!)

As a teacher, I have also been frustrated trying to provide services for students that have been on waiting lists for 4 and 5 years. In particular needy schools, like the one in which I teach, not everyone’s needs are met.

I remember the early 60’s because it is when I began school. I remember the rapport that my parents had with my teachers; I also remember the value and respect that was instilled in us for school.

I happen to work in a school that takes its commitment to students and to the community very seriously. It’s a community with high needs and we realize that we have just as much responsibility to parents as we do to students. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to achieve the results that we do.

But, obviously, I understand how frustrating it must be to come up against a system that seems to be passing the buck back to the parents.

Even implicit in value-added school ratings is the idea that things like home environment, S.E.S and parent education level are important factors in the potential attainment of children.

But, as educators, we must absolutely give more than lip-service to the idea that all children can learn. We must demonstrate it in the life of our schools.

I understand that this may sound a little pedantic. But at 11:06, after a tragic Leaf loss, that’s all I’ve got.

stephen

I wanted to thank all of you (including those that raised red flags about my presence here) for allowing me to spend so much time with you today. I set out to try to understand a perspective, and I think that I have a better understanding now of what gives this group life.

This is not an easy place to hang one’s hat, but your views are important to me as I continue to refine my own vision for what schools can be.

All of your comments and your energetic responses have been appreciated.

Stephen

Wayne, in response to your ‘2 cents’:  From the OED, the definition of a synonym—words and phrases in the same language which are completely interchangeable.  The English language has one of the largest lexicons, so English has many interchangeable words (synonyms).  Clear communication is important.  Everyone should get out their dictionary, grammar book, and thesaurus, and stop assuming and/or challenging what’s clearly written in black and white.

t is probably the number one reason, why reading specialists and specialized tutors are fully booked, and have waiting lists-
To Nancy-
These people are pretty well non existent after 30 years of whole language fad.The Universities don`t teach it.Even at a Masters Level at OISE for example-all theoretical ideologies are discussed.

Bev,

I understand that you are going by the rule of synonyms.  However, I would assume that you understand the term jargon - terminology particular to a trade or profession.  Far be it for me to counter the OED, but in its general definitions of responsibility and accountability,  they are synonymous.

However, this is an education forum and Mr. Hurley was using the terms as specifically relating to teachers and the education system.  If you go to Dictionary.com and search ‘accountability’, you will find the following definition: “Education . a policy of holding schools and teachers accountable for students’ academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.”  You will not find a similar definition under responsibility.

I believe, if you read Mr. Hurley’s original post, that is what he meant.

I know what jargon is, but it wasn’t used in Mr Hurley’s above blog.  Hurley’s original post:  “Is there a difference between accountability and responsibility?”  Rather than using jargon, Mr Hurley was hedging—the way of most educrats.  In Mr Hurley’s next blog, he says that he’s not sure if there is such a word as unanswerability.  Answerability is right out of the OE Therausus—a synonum for accountability, responsibiltiy and liability. 
Instead of looking things up, three bloggers came forward and corrected the OE Therausus, and one challenged whether or not unanswerability was a real word.  Wouldn’t this be unheard of in math and science?  Oh yah, I forgot, in our system it’s OK to be wrong in math

Bev,

I’ll repost Mr. Hurley’s original question in its entirety: “My question, and this is one that I’m really thinking about these days: “Is there a difference between accountability and responsibility?” If so, do we sometimes mean responsibility when we use accountability?”

Hence, the shades of meaning, hence my two cents.  After all that has been said over the last few months on this site about holding teachers, boards and the Ministry accountable for the poor education system, no one on this site can honestly say that all the words are simply interchangeable.

Accountability implies legal liability.  One may be responsible for an action, but not legally liable.  You are bent on playing tricks with semantics - something Mr. Little was often chided for doing.  Please don’t stoop to his level.

Oh for goodness sakes, Wayne!

Here is a real life example of accountability, but really it is a lack of accountability.

“Former integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet behaved unacceptably for a public servant and allegations of wrongdoing against her are founded, an audit by Auditor General Sheila Fraser found.

“In our view, [Ouimet’s] behaviour and actions do not pass the test of public scrutiny and are inappropriate and unacceptable for a public servant — most notably for the agent of Parliament specifically charged with the responsibility of upholding integrity in the public sector and of protecting public servants from reprisal,” Fraser wrote in her report released Thursday.”
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=26682437

It was reported on TV, that Ouimet that she was let go by the government, not fired and is entitled to her pension, severance pay and other benefits under her contract. Nice eh?  Even though the report shows clearly that she was not responsible in carrying out her duties of her job, she will not be held accountable for the actions she took while in this position. In fact, she is richly awarded.

Having responsibility does not always lead to being accountable.