As no one is commenting on this opinion piece, I will jump in.

The author assumes that, due to societal, cultural, and technological changes, today’s children are different from children in the past. Most particularly, she thinks that they are no longer are eager learners who need only competent teaching in order to learn. Instead, she thinks that today’s children have to be emotionally supported and motivated by enthusiastic teachers in order to induce them to co-operate.

Of course, I agree that there are some children with huge personal challenges, but I think this has always been the case. In the past, mothers died in childbirth, fathers went off to war, people didn’t have enough to eat, children had to work on the farm, and so forth. There have always been obstacles in the way of good teachers.

Basically, though, I doubt that today’s kids are fundamentally different. Mother Nature has hard-wired curiosity into young children’s brains, making them hungry for knowledge and learning. This is not the sort of thing that changes in the course of a few years.

In my work as a reading tutor, many youngsters came to me defeated. Their mothers warned me of short attention spans, laziness, ADHD, lack of interest in learning to read. And it’s true that for the first few minutes of their session they were like this. However, as soon as they grasped that they were actually going to learn to read, they were transformed. It usually happened in the course of the first lesson, occasionally during the second, but all of a sudden these “unmotivated”, “lazy” kids shifted forward in their seats and began to work very very hard.

Modern kids still want to learn. It’s just that far too many of them are being defeated by lousy teaching methods.

First, I’m wondering why you invited Ms. Burnard to contribute, and then dismissed her ideas, or at least used them to make the point that you have been making for a long time here.

I think that Ms. Burnard is on the money. All you have to do is read the literature on student engagement to know how important the connections and relationships of which she speaks are fundamental to quality learning.

Of course, there has to be good teaching as well, but those of us that venture into classrooms every day know that the best teaching methods don’t do anything unless accompanied by solid relationships, trust and a sense of caring.

That’s my take on it anyways!

M. C.

I agree fully with Malkin—she’s right on the money—children are unresponsive when in the wrong environment, and many of us have had first hand experience with this.  Dr. Macik (the chemist who researched who in NA, in the 50’s, wrote the math and science texts on which all of our current texts are still based) says that youngsters as early as the age of 10 will lap up challenging math and science curricula if given the opportunity.  He saw this in his own country.
This Ms. Burnard lady has a bit of a hard time expressing herself—she says that children need to be supportive, when she should have said supported.  When so-called professionals can’t express themselves, they lose a lot of credibility…

Well, when I first read the post, my first thoughts were teachers can’t become best friends, just as parents becoming best buddies with their children. I agree with Malkin that children are curious to begin with, and if anything the natural abundance of curiosity that my youngest had, certainly took a beating once she entered into the school system. If it was not on the menu of outcomes, her questions went unanswered or told to do her work in the way it was instructed. Eventually by grade 3, my child was not motivated to learn. What she did learn how to do very well, is to avoid learning at all costs because it avoided the humiliation that she faced and it was easier to meet the low expectations that was expected by her peers and adults.

I seen the same light as Malkin has described, ” It usually happened in the course of the first lesson, occasionally during the second, but all of a sudden these “unmotivated”, “lazy” kids shifted forward in their seats and began to work very very hard.
Modern kids still want to learn. It’s just that far too many of them are being defeated by lousy teaching methods.”  Very true in my child’s case, and I have observed this in other children as well.

I have read the articles that hailed from the educrats’ dungeon. I am not impressed with the methods and strategies being used. It is a recipe for compliant children, false praise, that depends on external motivation factors, rather than the internal factors that makes the individual child tick. A teacher could have danced on her head, it still would not have motivated my child to learn how to sound out words. A teacher should be a teacher, and not their best buddy.

“a recipe for compliant children, false praise, that depends on external motivation factors”

This is what our current model of education is counting on. This is what we need to move away from.

I think that some of you folks should actually wander into a classroom from time to time, take a seat, and work with kids…not just one child, but a class of children, from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and from a variety of family backgrounds.

I don’t disagree with your focus on basic reading skills, but come on…there’s more to talk about in our schools than phonics vs. whole language. That is so old…hmmm…

failing children where their basic skills is concerned never grows old Mark.

What the editorial does (Malkin doesn’t make it clear where this editorial is from or that she invited it) is lets the educator off the hook, makes yet another excuse as to why possibly the education system can’t possibly educate all children but continue to cost taxpayers plenty in the process of being friends with the students.

It’s wrong to focus on basics?  Are basics not the foundation on which to build?
If children were properly taught, and held back when unable to master subject matter, most of the propblems facing teachers would not exist.

I was also suspicious that Ms. Burnard’s theory that teachers need to develop intense relationships with their students would be another excuse to hire more teachers and have even smaller classes.  It would be interesting to know her background, and to see why she leans this way.

“If children were properly taught, and held back when unable to master subject matter, most of the propblems facing teachers would not exist”

Perhaps…I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. What about getting rid of grades at the very earliest parts of formal schooling. There’s plenty of time to “grade” kids when they’re older.

Why not have a basic set of standards that need to be met, say by age 8. If the child meets them sooner, then off they go into the rest of their schooling. If not, they have lots of chance to do that without having to “hold them back”.

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we demand “grade level” expectations that deal with the very foundations of which you speak and then tell a child that they are a failure if they don’t meet them by some arbitrary date…June 30th of the year that they are 6, 7, 8.

Let’s create lots of supportive space when children are beginning school…with lots of good instruction in the basics of understanding the reading process (decoding, phonemic awareness, etc), and then take it from there.

As Bev and Chuck was curious about who this Stacey Burnard was.

“J Putting the Pieces Together: Understanding Youth
Today. Stacey Burnard. EARLY/ELEM/SEC
What makes youth tick?  How can we reach out to and communicate with at-risk youth?  Putting the Pieces Together is a program designed to create positive, supportive school cultures
and develop resilient, emotionally responsive children.  As teachers, our roles have shifted from purveyors of academic knowledge to moral educators.  A school setting may be the only
predictable environment in which children can feel safe, secure,  and begin to reach out to others to build attachments and enhance their potential.
Putting the Pieces Together was created by Stacey Burnard, an Educational Psychologist and Behaviour Specialist with 10 years of experience working in the public and post-secondary school
systems.”

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/firstnations/pdf/08-09/workshop_08.pdf

On page 5 of the PDF file.

From what I can gathered, at the present time he is working as an educational consultant, but his prior experience comes for working as an educational psychologist within the public educational system.

As you can tell, he is a firm believer that a teacher is no longer the purveyors of teaching knowledge, but also creating the conditions to become moral purveyors. Is this the reason why, my child did not get effective reading instruction, because the educators were too busy putting moral values in my child, as well as chastising me for having higher standards than the public education system?

So Mark Chambers, explain why a moral education would come first before the academic education?  Morally speaking, it did nothing for my child’s academic learning weaknesses. Morally speaking, it did promote the killing of my child’s self-esteem and the negative track in my child’s mind, that she was one dumb kid. In fact when educators try to play parent, inserting moral values and judgments that is usurping parental rights and transferring it to the state, it will end in tears. It lowers the expectations of all children, and places many in the high-risked category for never reaching their potential. 

”  I think we get ourselves into trouble when we demand “grade level” expectations that deal with the very foundations of which you speak and then tell a child that they are a failure if they don’t meet them by some arbitrary date…June 30th of the year that they are 6, 7, 8.
Let’s create lots of supportive space when children are beginning school…with lots of good instruction in the basics of understanding the reading process (decoding, phonemic awareness, etc), and then take it from there.”

What I am afraid of,  is the public education system using one-sized-fits-all approaches, discounting the individual’s unique learning needs and in the end sabotaging the self-esteem of the students. As far as I am concern, Burnard is another educrat making a dollar off the backs of the failures of the public education system. It is not in his personal best interests to reformed the educational system to one where 97 % of the student population have a firm foundation in the 3 Rs.

You have asked me to reveal the posting’s provenance. Ms Burnard sent me an article she had written and asked for my reaction. We went back and forth a bit and then I asked her whether she would be interested in reformatting the article as a guest blog. I did warn her that her posting would probably be controversial, adding that I disagreed with her main thesis and might well be weighing in myself.

It is thus apparent that Ms Burnard is a good sport. I would be grateful if you would debate her ideas on their merits and keep personalities out of it. I think this is a very important question, and it seems to be showing up a bit of a split between teachers on the one side and parents on the other. It would be great to get the perspective of some of our other readers, especially the educators!

Hi folks:

I am quite taken and pleased by the discourse that my article has generated.  I should perhaps highlight that I spend most of my time working as a public educator “in the system” but am also a consultant writing articles for educational journals in B.C. and Yukon.  I have spent a great time working with at-risk behavioural children from impoverished environments as well as from middle class backgrounds. When I point to relationships being paramount I speak of not only the need for these relationships to bring our at-risk children back into the fold; but I mention and highlight the relational needs of all our children.  Children today spend less time with families and more with peers and videos/electronics.  Children and youth need adult wisdom and guidance and due to multiple demands and stressors on families I feel that educators are being asked to be the ones to build these relationships in order to reach children and teach them basic literacy, numeracy, social citizenship etc.  I look to teachers AND parents to ensure children will continue to play active roles in all of our communities.  In today’s classrooms it is a tough job keeping, even the diligent kids on track.  I applaud teachers today for balancing curriculum demands with the ongoing social-emotional needs that children and youth bring to our classes.
Once again, I applaud the lively discourse on this space.

Stacey, what about the well-behaved children in any classroom that are eager to please the teacher and will work very hard attempting to do what is asked for. Some of the well-behaved children, will do school work with ease, but than there is others their work displays learning problems within their reading, writing, and numeracy. It is within this group of well-behaved children, that the education system often ignores their learning needs, because they seem to be happy, well-adjusted children at school, and in any other public settings. It is perceived that the well-behaved children are socially well-adjusted and emotionally very happy kids.

Now as a parent for the last 35 years, I have observed the many changes that have occurred in the public education system. The schools that my children have attended in various urban and rural settings, the one constant that has remained the same for all of my children their learning needs were seen through the lens of behaviour and other social measures first, than the second filter of academic standing was applied.

As you have stated in the post, “That is, unless the emotional needs of our students are met, it will be impossible for teachers to convey the academic goals. Children have to feel emotionally supportive before engaging in academic pursuits that reflect their potential. This does not negate the need for basic skill development but rather purports that a number of our learners must feel connected to their teacher prior to becoming engaged in learning to learn.”

What happens to children who are perceived as being well-adjusted, appears to connect to the teacher before engaging in learning?  My well-adjusted children learned how to work the education system, than being actively engaged in reaching their full potential. It was not until my youngest entered the public education system, I was faced with a school system who saw behaviour as the leading indicator to be engaged in learning, and academic problems were discounted, in favour of behaviour indicators.

My youngest quickly took advantage of an education system where behaviour of LD children has a greater value, than the academic work. Low expectations became a part of who she was, until I took it upon myself to re-teach at home to improved her academic standing.  It was a lot of hard work for both of us, especially when the education system saw no need to address the leaning weaknesses of my child. They were quite happy with her extreme grades, scoring As in some subjects and C minuses in language arts and math,  because they viewed her through the lens of behavioural indicators first, seeing no need to addressed the learning weaknesses, or her academic standing, because she was passing.

“I applaud teachers today for balancing curriculum demands with the ongoing social-emotional needs that children and youth bring to our classes.”, in your last post. View this statement in the light of the emotionally well-adjusted children, good behavior in the classroom, regardless of family dynamics and background. And than answer my question, can an educator really meet the social-emotional needs of any child, by looking at the data/information that has been collected by the school, and observations, to determined children’s learning needs?  I often found, and especially experienced with my youngest, that often it was not the best interests of my child, but rather looking after the best interests of the education system.

I like the last idea in the Mark Chambers post.
Ability grouping till the end of Grade 2 would make so much sense rather than grade grouping.This isn`t IQ grouping.!
If kids don`t have the basics it would give a school a year to have time to catch him/her up.
The reduction of high low levels would be a wonderful attainment by Grade 3 because we would have taught kids the stuff they struggle with,the basic level attainment in Reading and Math.It would mean in Grade 3 we`d have a group that varies as far as genres but not
lacking the foundation for attaining an education.

The comment from Mark as far as phonics whole language is not the goal of the Society for Quality Education.It is the respect for empirical education research which is blatantly ignored that bothers us.If you think we believe it is Phonics vs Whole Language,you just don`t get it.But we do,so that`s okay.

I agree with your concerns re: learning disabled, and quiet, populations.  I was trained in Ontario and worked in Ontario, Manitoba, BC and Yukon and it is very difficult trying to get service for this population.  Due to the “block” funding nature of this category. Unlike other provinces thankfully, Yukon does not prescribed to a “categorical” system of funding, but rather it is based on “need.” Accordingly, the idea such that where children need service the service is provided.

The other concern is that learning challenges when unmet may materialize into behaviour problems.  If I was sitting there not understanding the material, for example, I know at the very least I would be bored and then who knows what can happen when I get bored.  Usually, underlying acting out or avoidance behaviours there is a learning challenge that needs to be addressed.  This correlation really needs to be brought to light if it is not understood by educators.

Stacey, it was not a lack of attempts on my part, but rather multiple attempts trying to explain. The public education system, and the designed of it, is not responsive to children’s learning needs, but is responsive to the teacher’s needs because it is the teacher that acts as the agent for the individual child’s learning needs. If the teacher does not view it as being an important consideration, the quiet well-behaved child will be seen in a much different light, as having lesser learning needs than the child that throws books across the classroom..

I am not alone in the general feeling that the public education system is just not designed for children.

“To end my story, I’d just like to say one of my favorite quotes from my dad:
“My opinion of ‘learning disabilities’ is that they are more likely ‘teaching disabilities’. We try teaching people based upon a ‘norm’, if you deviate from that norm (better or worse) you are considered to have a ‘learning disability’, when in reality the system cannot seem to adjust their teaching styles to adapt to the needs of the learner. “
http://www.ldexperience.ca/archives/612

Quoted from a person who has LD and ADHD.

I will take it a little further, where behaviour of children are seen as a disease, rather than a symptom. The underlying causes of behaviour good or bad,  is rarely examined with a fine tooth comb, in the light of their educational needs. What is examine is the surface behaviours of children, and how teachers can act as an emotional supporter, rather than addressing the underlying causes. I have never forgotten the day, my child in grade 3 came home angry, crying, and was in a right state being sent home with a packet of what she called baby books. It was the school’s answer to ease her frustration levels in doing school work, completely ignoring the underlying causes of her frustration. The next day I went down to the school to give them a piece of my mind,  to no avail. The school was insisting that my child’s good behaviour and likable personality, indicated being slow and had nothing to do with reading and writing problems. As for my child’s behaviour the night before, it was explain to me, it was her way of getting out of the homework assigned to her.

It was another defining moment for my myself and my youngest. A few weeks later, the assessment report came in, with the diagnoses of learning disabilities along with a short summary from the educational psychologist that her frustrations was a symptom of her learning disability, and the good news is that her learning problems can be corrected, with specific targeted help in reading and writing. I was naive back then, thinking our life could return back to something that resembled normalcy, and I could not be so wrong.

The school never did addressed my child’s academic weaknesses effectively, nor could they adjust their teaching styles to adapt to the learning needs of my child. And even now, when she is dragged out of the classroom to see the guidance counselor,  she advocates for the targeted help for reading and writing, and refuses to talk about her feelings. As she will state, feelings are not going to help me to read or write better. I often wonder what is written down by the counselor. Is it words such as defiant, unwilling, strong-willed, or refusing to talk about her feelings?  Is this the new reason, why there is still no effective help to remediate her learning weaknesses?  I do not blame the teachers, but I do blame a public education system that has moved away from their core duties to become a parent, a social worker, a doctor, etc., trying to solve all the social ills of society by changing attitudes, emotions, dogma, beliefs and behaviour of children and parents. Isn’t it about time the public education system, start to adapt to the individual students’ learning needs, rather than trying to impact learning and achievement by social indoctrination, behavioural strategies, and other such social techniques?

“I like the last idea in the Mark Chambers post.
Ability grouping till the end of Grade 2 would make so much sense rather than grade grouping.This isn`t IQ grouping.!
If kids don`t have the basics it would give a school a year to have time to catch him/her up.”

I totally agree. I think we need understand that development doesn’t always happen in a “lock-step” age-determined way. I’ve been thinking about this very thing for a couple of months now. My latest blog post on how this approach is working in my son’s skating program went up today: http://www.teachingoutloud.org