Sorry, I had forgotten. 

I did leave out the most powerful player on the team - The Ministry.  Don’t forget - it is the Ministry that has the largest single ‘hierarchy’ (I think you mean bureaucracy); it actually has the power to set curriculum, programs and standards and it determines what shall (note: MUST, not MAY) be taught in Ontario classrooms.  Once the Ministry has set the curriculum, it is up to the boards to implement it and the teachers to follow.  The FOE’s simply train to the standards set.

OK, agreed, but it leaves me scratching my head. How do the Ministry staff gain from mandating bad math programs? Why do they like imposing ineffective programs that mean kids learn less in school?

it is unworthy to assume that any of the participants has an ‘interest’ in poor outcomes.  but that makes the question even more interesting.

rational people can have mutually incomprehensible opinions because they subscribe to different paradigms.  for example, anyone following the US elections has heard from those against heath care even though they can’t afford their own coverage, and also those for heath care even though their own needs are satisfied.  the difference seems to stem from whether they believe that each individual is responsible for his own welfare (i’m not paying for your heart attack), or whether communities should work together for the common good.  both are rational and defensible positions.

perhaps we all subscribe to the same paradigm, and we need someone to explain the other side to us.

Remember, the union does not want to be accountable to anyone:  they’re even trying to have the few standardized tests Ontario has scrapped.  With bad curricula, it appears that many children can’t learn.  Parents are uninformed, and therefore assume that teaching staff are well-trained and that curricula is well-developed.  With so many children struggling, more teachers are needed, therefore more burearcrats, which in turn means more funding.  Unfortunately, it appears that not enough educrats want to spoil such a good thing; perhaps others just don’t get it or are in denial…

I had promised myself I would read but not respond but Malkin`s post today reflects the cancer in education.
Paul Bennett at Educhatter wrote one of the most enlightened posts I have ever seen on the subject.

I think a lot of people on the inside are on the take,especially a few named here on the link I will provide..We can never kid ourselves on the level of corruption Tom,you may still be too young to fully be aware.
What`s good about Malkin`s post today is it offers up the necessary skepticism,a step in the right direction-not that we could ever fix it.

http://educhatter.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/spinning-education-policy-issues-why-is-the-research-routinely-ignored/

Bev,

Do you really believe that it is in the union’s best interests to have poorly trained teachers in the classroom? 

WRT accountability:  we are accountable to the board via the supervisory structure of principals and superintendents.  Teachers are also accountable on a daily basis to their students and parents.  We are hardly an ‘unseen’ commodity.

I just Googled ‘lazy teachers’ and got 36,400,000 hits in .31 seconds / ‘bad teachers’ nets another 11,500,000 hits in .18 seconds including a movie with Cameron Diaz (I’d recommend watching it - good movie).

Do you think that teachers really enjoy bad press?  Do you really think that we like being called lazy, bad, stupid, worthless and unemployable anywhere else (ie:  ‘Those who can, do ...’)

Sorry Malkin,

Missed your post.  I don’t think that the Ministry has any more/less to gain from poor programs than any other group.  The big difference:  because of their size and power, they are the targets of some heavy lobbying.  How do you think that publishers get on the Trillium list?  How do you think that the Ministry learns about new programs and initiatives?  They get behind these initiatives because they are told that they will work - and they want to look good.

Sometimes, the pressure comes from the government.  Ever wonder about the Ministry’s new Food and Beverage policy?  Ever wonder why they Ministry would mandate (ie:  MUST follow, or be shut down) a program that has already produced a $700,000 loss?  The good health of your children?  Well, on the surface, yes.  But as an educational institution, it would be our purpose to educate children about good eating habits, not force them upon the students and parents.  Why the heavy hand?  A colleague of mine attended a workshop put on by the Ministry back in February on the new policy.  (Aside:  typical Ministry timing, set a meeting in February to explain a policy that was already in place in September - but I digress.)  When things got heated in the meeting - when push came to shove - what rationale did the Ministry spokesperson give?  Well, the Premier promised to raise success rates, and one of the best ways to do that (through studies) is to have children follow a healthy diet.  Great - children have been fed a steady diet of fuzzy math and questionable reading programs, but give them some broccoli and peas and we’ll have a bunch of Einsteins.

Makes me so sad to read the bulk of the posts on this issue.

There used to be accountability in the system 20 and 30 years ago- there is none now -and that is why things get so silly.

You want good teachers in the class room?  I do too!  Three simple things that will accomplish more than the entire EQAO two step shuffle:
1.  Subject Specialists from the ministry to evaluate subject specialists in the classroom.  We had it- and while no one was looking - we were told that that the VP or a Principal regardless of their subject specialty can evaluate a teacher with a disperate subject specialty.  I have had my science lessons evaluated by english, history, and geography speciaists.  Yup, take a momment. 

2.  Transperancy in curriculum delivery.  Exams should be available/filed so that colleagues, students, parents, and the administration can monitor if they reflect the current curriculum.  How many schools have teachers that have not adjusted their classroom lessons to reflect new curriculum?  How many are teaching curriculum from three curriculums in the past?  How does one know?  Exams reflect what has been taught.  They need to be public so that what is being taught in the classroom is public.

3.  School Budgets especially the portion that explains the $$ assigned to each department need to be posted so that parents can compare between schools.  Are we buying volleyballs,  hockey pucks or voltmeters?

Hi Jo-Anne, I’m probably older than you are.  <g>

I know nothing about math education, and less about how curriculum decisions are made.  But i know math; my first degree was in electrical engineering, which turned out to be just calculus and beer drinking.  I’ve always loved physics and number theory.

My two take-aways from the Maclean’s article are

1) the new curriculum is trying to teach math in a wonderful way - visually and organically.  Einstein’s special relativity is simple enough for a 5th-grader to derive if he can visualize the framework.  I failed my first try at calculus because I was trying to do it without the visual understanding - just grinding numbers. 

I do arithmetic the ‘new’ way, either whacking away approximations in my head, or pulling out a calculator.  so do you: 15% tip? - it’s going to be between this and this…  I believe I had to do a lot of old-style arithmetic in order to develop a ‘feel’ for numbers, but my intuition is not reliable in this matter, and maybe this feel can be taught.

2) a teacher without a deep and fundamental understanding of the geometry of math isn’t going to be able to teach it.  no way, not going to happen.  maybe we need to recruit math teachers from the engineering faculty.  (but how the heck do you ensure that all parents have math degrees?). 

I don’t see a conspiracy of evil here.  it looks like a good idea that went wrong for the usual reasons: poor planning, poor training, poor preparation, poor implementation, and poor support.

and further… i think we all agree on the merits of synthetic phonics.

but parents often don’t understand it, didn’t learn that way, can’t help their kids, and don’t like it.  teachers often don’t understand it either.  Sue Lloyd did a masterful job in developing the Jolly Phonics curriculum, and making it teachable; without her, synthetic phonics would likely have been a disaster too.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081118085243AAz9o2z

Jolly Phonics lacks the phonemic awareness component and many of the sounds are wrong for that reason-is this unabashed advertising?

If you look at the studies on effectiveness…......

JP is a popular version of synthetic phonics, I use it only as an example. 

your complaints support one of my points:  yes there are issues with JP, but that doesn’t suggest malice on the part of the designers or implementers. 

perhaps the difference is that the math program implementers are struggling without the benefit of a great designer.  or perhaps they are a really bad idea and just don’t work.  but the conspiracy theories are certainly wrong.

Jo-Anne and Mirka come closest to my way of thinking about this issue.

I have to also add that honestly I’ve thought about how some may be on the take. I can not discount that theory either.

Could it also be that keeping the students perpetually uneducated with unproven math and reading programs ensures the recycled existence of public education entirely?

I mean if by using proven effective programs like Saxon math actually saw more children as the benefactors of those lessons why would we need all of those specialist teachers?

If students were educated on basic skills what WOULD we do with all of the hangers-on….ooops, I mean specialist teachers?

Hi Chuck,

The system makes me nuts….  math especially.  The more students that shut the door to math the more students shut doors to opportunities they cannot even imagine.  I had that special teacher in grade 10 that made math make sense… finally !!!...  Mr. Irvine…......It changed my life.  It opened doors and windows-  thanks to this professional I pursued a Honours B Sc.  and became a teacher.  This one professional math teacher that was a true academic changed many lives.  He took pride in what he was doing and his passion brooked no compromise.

There are teachers like Mr. Irvine fighting the good fight each and every day….  But as long as the principals are the only quality control evaluating academic performance nothing that is shared in this blog and similiar provincial dialogues will make *any* difference.

Principals are pragmatic politicians that serve personal agendas.  If you are very lucky the principal in your school actually cares about academics.  But that is a 1:5 reality (in my experience of 25 years).  That is right in 25 years I have seen 5 years where the principal was the sort of academic leaders parents/students yearn for. 

You want accountability?  You need to fight for the return of provincial inspectors - subject specialists- to inspect subject specialists on the ground. 

Do not believe me?  Go to “OCT find a teacher” and assess the qualifications of the teacher delivering secondary curriculum at your child’s school.  Are they there because they are qualified and passionate?  Are they there because they coach hockey?

Scott, I’d like to answer some of your comments

>>WRT accountability:  we are accountable to the board via the supervisory structure of principals and superintendents.  Teachers are also accountable on a daily basis to their students and parents.  We are hardly an ‘unseen’ commodity.
<<
I don’t know enough yet about high school. I think in high school there is some accountability because there are at least exams and to some degree parents know how successful graduates of a certain high school tend to be after high school.

There is NO accountability in elementary schools IN TERMS OF RESULTS. There is some process accountability, that is teachers are verified that they follow the teaching approach mandated by the ministry.

As long as a teacher follows the fuzzy explain your approach, getting the right result and reasonably fast do not matter much,  and solve linear equations by trial and error - this one really gets me red - he is fine; he meets the accountability requirements.

So, yeah we have process accountability to an idiotic approach of teaching elementary math but we don’t have results accountability.

>>
Do you think that teachers really enjoy bad press?  Do you really think that we like being called lazy, bad, stupid, worthless and unemployable anywhere else (ie:  ‘Those who can, do ...’)
<<
Well, first of all I make a distinction between elementary teachers and high school teachers simply because the training and the selection is different.

My emphasize in all my comments is on elementary years and elementary teachers for the simple reason that by high school it is too late for the majority of students.

While there may be a few highly publicized rags-to-reaches - read not knowing how to add one digit numbers to studying theoretical physics - the sad reality is that most students, even with the best high school teaching cannot make up in grade 9 and 10 a 2-3-4 year skill deficit accumulated in elementary years.
Not only it is hard in terms of sheer volume of knowledge and practice required but unfortunately these students are not just ignorant in math they have poor habits of thinking in math, they have already given up on themselves about math to some degree and the hormones are kicking in.

In addition, adolescent peer pressure tells them that is not cool to be good at math because you are a nerd and it also tells them that you have to be stupid to want to work so hard in math when one could simply choose other high school courses where you can get high marks easier.

Wayne, you are teaching high school math. Are you happy with the math skills of students starting grade 9?
They were in school for 8 years and somebody has been teaching them for 8 years!

So, yes, for the record I think that the majority of elementary teachers are ill-prepared to teach math.

Hey Europe,

We all can only speak to what we know and what we have learned the hard way.  My favourite madam oprah saying is “when you know better you do better.

I speak to my experiences in Secondary School in Canada - Ontario.  I share not as a thereapeutifc rant but a genuine belief that these blogs can affect change for the better.  My personal focus is Secondary School in Ontario… because that is what impacts my own children and the hundreds of children that are in my care each year.

For me, no offense, that is the focus—- as that is all I can manage without losing my mind.

Europe,

You ask if I am happy with the skill set of my students in grade 9 - absolutely not.  In a way, it wouldn’t even be so bad if they were fixed at the same point, let’s say Grade 7.  Then you could work with them and bring them up to speed to work effectively at the grade 9 level.  But they are all over the map from grade 3 to grade 9.