ok, I’ll modify my comment from the previous post.

Ontario textbooks:
The text is flawed for at least for some students;
The books are outdated.

I’ll also add:
The intent of current Ontario textbooks goes beyond providing text;
Pricing of the resources is opaque;
The self-interest of suppliers and users are not equally accommodated.

“Pearson is an international media company with world-leading businesses in education, consumer publishing, and business information, focusing on education in the broadest sense of the word. It has more than 34,000 employees based in more than 60 countries, including approximately 660 people in three locations across Canada.

Pearson is home to many of the most respected and renowned publishing brands, including Penguin, Viking, Prentice Hall, Addison Wesley, Allyn & Bacon, and Longman. .”

http://www.pearsoncanada.ca/about.html

“Scholastic Canada is one of the country’s leading publishers and distributors of children’s books and educational materials in both official languages.

“Incorporated in 1957, Scholastic Canada Ltd. was the first of an international family of companies that now includes members in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, India and Hong Kong. All evolved from the original Scholastic company founded in 1920 by M.R. (Robbie) Robinson in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. “

http://www.scholastic.ca/aboutscholastic/

Now the McGraw-Hill Ryerson publisher, is where the American McGraw-Hill brought the Canadian Ryerson Press in 1970.

http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/about+mhr/organization/history.php

Founded in 1987, Thompson Educational Publishing is a family-owned Canadian publishing company committed to advancing the cause of public education and to making the Canadian education system work better for our kids.
http://www.thompsonbooks.com/about-us.html

Note: Thompson Educational Publishings, brought out Nelson Canada. and it is a stretch to call it a Canadian company in today’s world.

Emond Montgomery Publications Limited is also a Canadian company. http://www.emp.ca/index.php/about-us

“The house was founded on April 1,1966 by Robert I. Fitzhenry (formerly Vice President, Sales for Harper & Row) and Cecil L. Whiteside (formerly Vice President, Sales for the Musson Book Company). In its early years, Fitzhenry & Whiteside operated primarily as a Distributor for American publishers – Harper & Row, Dial Delacorte, Grosset & Dunlap, Golden Books, Thomas Y Crowell, Henry Holt, and Walker, among others.
http://www.fitzhenry.ca/about.aspx

Nelson now owns Gage Learning Corporation.

Irwin Publishing is now part of Nelson.

“Oxford University Press is one of the oldest publishing companies in the world, as well as one of the largest. Its imprint carries authority, its standards of book production are high, and its range of interests is wide. It is a department of the University of Oxford, though not subsidized by the University. It is not a company, it pays no dividend, and it has no shareholders. It is devoted to the spread of knowledge, and all its surplus is devoted to the publication of works which further scholarship and education or to sustaining some of the research on which these books may be based.”
http://www.oupcanada.com/corporate.html

Even Nelson does not disappoint.

“Nelson Education Ltd. is owned by OMERS Capital Partners and certain funds of APAX Partners and enjoys a strong relationship with Cengage Learning, our US affiliate company. Cengage Learning is a highly respected US academic & professional publisher.”

http://www.nelson.com/aboutus/

The publishers are just a few of them, that I would not even consider being Canadian, except where the address of head office is located. I only found one that is Canadian, but here too in a few years, it will be brought up by one of the big ones. Pearson, Thompson, or Nelson.

As in United States, the same publishers such as Pearson, and others are connected to the Canadian firms, and in some cases reaching out to countries outside of North America. Probably the rule that a textbook must be published in Canada, was put in to protect the interests of the big publishers. It is rather hard for a European publisher or an Asian publisher entering into a market that favours the established publishing firms. Plus it promotes little competition among the established publishers. One math textbook from one publisher, to another, are very much the same in their format and outlines.

The smaller Canadian publishers have an uphill battle in getting material into the classroom, especially the specialized material meant for segments of the student population, such as the learning disabilities. Even here much of the software titles are from the big publishers, leaving only a small sliver for the smaller software developers that specializes in reading, writing and numeracy.

we have also to remember that the folks who publish these texts lobby the MOE long and hard AND offer special deals IF teachers field test new books with their students…whether they’re good or not.

One such educator actually sent the new text he was using for his class that year home with the students and asked that parents look the book over and let him know what he thought.

How’s that for quality assurance?

I have to also share a story from my days on a school council when we were asked to raise money for textbooks(supposedly a no-no today) only to discover that whole sets of perfectly good books were being packaged and shipped for use in another country.

Same year, under the Mike Harris years, whole sets of new textbooks left unpacked in a storage closet and unused one year in keeping with the allegation by teacher unions that Harris cut textbook funding. (which was proven wrong as it turned out when the public could see through via school profiled financial info. posted at the MOE site and just how money from texts was actually rec’d by boards but used for other things like retirement gratuities. (This portion of school board profiles was quickly removed by the incoming gov’t).
It served to break the union’s myth that in fact that the Harris gov’t did in fact allocate money to boards for texts but that it was the board’s decision to move the money elsewhere.

I believe OQE did a neat piece on how the politics seeped into the whole textbook question.

I raise this because I have to wonder whether the unions don’t have a hand in this move as a way to pay for the ELP? The gov’t needs money it currently doe not have and we still have no idea where the money’s going to come from for that program.

The teachers’ union, in my opinion is at work behind the scenes. Whether ELP or teacher raises, or something else, from my observations for the last 35 years, when something new comes down the pipeline, some other service is reduce. When it comes to public schooling, the kids that take the hit are the ones who are in special education classes or receiving SE services. Than comes the general student population. Than it is the parents who are picking up where the school no longer provides the resource or service.

I would not be surprise in Ontario’s schools that book sharing will back in vogue once again.

People have been saying get rid of text books since I started teaching in 1974. Easy to say, hard to do. No viable solution has yet been found.

I’m very certain that if by “people” you mean the Minister of Education which is what the post suggests she’s in a perfect position to do something about it.

Students already know that it’s cheaper to download textbooks than it is to buy them.

Wait until the MOE catches on to that money-saver.

“Math Makes Sense” has all of the following flaws described by Malkin.

>>
Their content is often poorly-explained, out-of-sequence, and/or inaccurate.
... while the math and science texts are based on the flawed “spiral curriculum” concept whereby topics are revisited year after year.
Most texts contain insufficient and inappropriate opportunities to practise the new concepts.
<<

Some things are so confusingly presented that you first have “to undo” in the mind of the child the confusion the textbook created and then teach in a clear way.

I cannot even begin to tell you how mad that makes me because it is much easier to teach from scratch rather than “undo”.

Blind leading the blind doesn’t even begin to describe the situation.
No wonder a lot of kids think that even very basic math is hard and that you have to have “math smarts” to be good at it!

Math becomes this gigantic game of guessing, and figuring out your own approaches ...

Where in the world but North America is “guess and check” a “method” for solving linear equations?

Where in the world but North America are the children taught multiplication in any other way but the standard multiplication algorithm?

Where in the world but North America you first teach multiplying a number by a 1-digit number, then by a 2-digit number then by a 3-digit number as if these multiplications are conceptually different?

On a more positive note, if anybody needs to teach algebra, I recommend “Painless Algebra” by Lynette Long.
The explanations are superbly clear.
The exercises fit well with what is being explained in the text and establish a solid understanding of concepts. However there are not enough of them so you will need to supplement.

Another flaw, albeit more of a peeve, is that today’s textbooks are made with glossy, expensive, and HEAVY paper. 

I still have some of my textbooks from all levels of school.  My 1972 Grade 12 Mastering Effective English, a fair-sized tome, is so much lighter in weight (but heavier in content) than my kids’ more recent glossy textbooks. 

No wonder “people” want to get rid of textbooks when kids have to carry tons around in overloaded backpacks—a chiropractor’s dream.

In the Asperger’s/High Functioning Autism community, the glossiness and busyness of some of these textbooks is a real problem.  The pages become more than a distraction, they’re actually unusable for some kids.

One of the things I liked about the Singapore math books was the paper.  The pages were coarse - there was no gloss.  Colours were restricted to black and dark blue.  The layout was sparse, even Spartan: no photographs, very few pictures and a pleasing spatial layout.  Worked for us.

The busyness is a problem for all the kids.

In an attempt to make math fun and relevant, the pictures - of students doing math work?!!! - take up a lot of space that could be used for practice problems.

How do these pictures help with math is beyond my comprehension.

When educating children, they seem to have it backwards by trying to make everything fun.  They don’t seem to understand that anything that’s worth learning begins with drudgery.  When something is mastered, it can become both interesting and enjoyable, plus there comes the pride of accomplishing something.  Of course with pride comes the building of self-esteem.
I wish they’d get it right for the kids :-(

I just read Europe’s comments about the bad math texts used in our schools.  The poor teachers are no experts in math either, so besides the flawed teaching methods they have to deal with, they have very bad texts as well.  How do they teach children math?

Bev asks “How do they teach children math?”

Using the math texts we have now, teaching kids to read would be a start because most of the books I’ve seen tend to focus on a glut of word problems rather than numeric ones.

It would stand to reason that if a child can’t read he/she will not be able to grasp math either.

Yes, the math textbooks are heavy in language, and light on numerical equations. For my kid she had problems in math, because of her weak reading ability. Furthermore, the reading of any number of math books, makes a lot of parents read it again, and perhaps a third time, just to get the gist of what the problem is. As I have always, What they say in 3 to 4 pages, can be whittled down to one or two paragraphs. And in some cases 50 words or less. When my child went back in the regular classroom for math, I did her notes, and show clear concise examples.  The present day math texts, are poorly designed, poorly worded, and a lack of exercises. It would give a math professor headaches.

So, it sounds like these modern math texts that have made it to the ministry’s Trilliam list not only have very bad methods for teaching basic math skills, but the authors can’t even explain them in a clear and concise way.  These authors are obviously lacking good literacy skills.
Why does our ministry buy this junk?  I did hear years ago from a trustee that many educrats and their buddies write these texts and make a lot of money doing this.  Perhaps I’ve answered my own query.

The TDSB strongly discourages the use of textbooks, and when they are available, they should be considered a resource, not the main teaching tool for the subject. 

  The last two schools I’ve been at do not have textbooks at all for the primary grades, whether in reading or math or other language activities; guided reading groups are to use leveled books that can be borrowed from a central resource centre, or downloaded from Reading A-Z.com, or (if the school is very well-resourced) borrowed from the school book room, which has sets of leveled books, leveled according to Reading Recovery/DRA levels, not decodability. Children are supposed to “predict” words based on the pictures, the context, the syntax of the sentence, and so on.  The alphabet and spelling of words is considered a “visual” cue, not a representation of the sounds of the graphemes in the word. Reading, according to the Ken Goodman/Marie Clay school of thought, is a visual process, not one of visual mediation of sound.

As for math, we don’t have textbooks for that either. Teachers are supposed to make up their own lessons using “real life” applications and “manipulatives” (Base 10 blocks, pattern blocks, pentominoes, Miras, etc).  “Rote learning” (of math facts, tables, algorithms) is downplayed and generally disparaged, while “critical thinking” is believed to take its place. The evidence is that you can’t “think critically” about a topic without a lot of basic knowledge, but that doesn’t seem to be part of the orthodoxy here, at least from what I’ve heard from the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, OFIP and the like.

The new Math curriculum does not require children to memorize the number facts or algorithms, but it includes a lot more about probability and data management.

You can see the new math curriculum here: http://edu.gov.on.ca./eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf

It’s a good idea to read the introductory pages to get an idea why texts and programs are not encouraged – the belief is that students learn in different ways at different times and should not be presented with the same instruction.  Instead, mathematics (like all other subjects) is to be “differentiated” for the individual learner, which means no text or program can be regularly used for the whole class. That said, I have seen math books used in the intermediate grades, but there is one class set for each grade level, not one per class (we have 5 classes at each grade level), so that they are only used as a resource for a portion of the class at any given time.

This post at Kitchen Table Math by Allison, a Ph.D physicist homeschooler, discusses how this “differentiation” works in practice.
http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2009/12/practical-differentiation-strategies-in.html

What is coming out now from all is what we know but we are getting the courage to articulate it-

Bev`s statement resonates with what I have heard as well and TDSBNW`s comments are I am sure frighteningly accurate.

The belief about Reading is flawed,based on myth and fails most kids ,smart,SES-SE,boys etc..

One more thing-the publishers sell one author rather than consolidated view and research results-I`m not sure-I don`t think they do that in medicine..?

Also, see this document on the Ministry website:
http://edu.gov.on.ca./eng/document/reports/math/math.pdf

You can see many parallels to the philosophy of Balanced Literacy, including the idea of guided math, shared math, etc.

See the Teacher Guides to Effective Instruction in the various strands and grade levels at this site:
http://www.eworkshop.on.ca/cfmx/edu/core.cfm?p=guides&navID=guides

In the primary grades there was no text books where my child went. They had work books for math, and LA.

“The last two schools I’ve been at do not have textbooks at all for the primary grades, whether in reading or math or other language activities; guided reading groups are to use leveled books that can be borrowed from a central resource centre, or downloaded from Reading A-Z.com, or (if the school is very well-resourced) borrowed from the school book room, which has sets of leveled books, leveled according to Reading Recovery/DRA levels, not decodability. Children are supposed to “predict” words based on the pictures, the context, the syntax of the sentence, and so on.  The alphabet and spelling of words is considered a “visual” cue, not a representation of the sounds of the graphemes in the word. Reading, according to the Ken Goodman/Marie Clay school of thought, is a visual process, not one of visual mediation of sound.

As for math, we don’t have textbooks for that either. Teachers are supposed to make up their own lessons using “real life” applications and “manipulatives” (Base 10 blocks, pattern blocks, pentominoes, Miras, etc).  “Rote learning” (of math facts, tables, algorithms) is downplayed and generally disparaged, while “critical thinking” is believed to take its place. The evidence is that you can’t “think critically” about a topic without a lot of basic knowledge, but that doesn’t seem to be part of the orthodoxy here, at least from what I’ve heard from the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, OFIP and the like. “

Now tell me TBSBNW, what do you do with about 4 or 5 well behaved children, who are obviously struggling, yet nothing seems to work, except direct instruction. I can tell you one thing, the curriculum outline, in both reading and numeracy the classroom teacher will miss the learning struggles, and put it down as being uncooperative, not focused enough, and the many other comments. Perhaps the teacher will lower the expectations, so the poor kid can experienced success. Yet, they will come home, and cry that the teacher thinks they are stupid. Take a gander on the LD sites, and what parents are talking about.  You will find a great many comments like the above one, plus some harsh criticism on the curriculum.

Besides reading, math is poorly taught. By grade 4, a typical math classroom is composed of math haters. Hated the subject for various reasons. The 4 or 5 children I have mentioned, have been identified usually by the parents, who have paid a pretty penny for the assessments, One or two of the five children, will have major problems in numbers, but not geometry or data management. The same two children, will have different comprehension strengths, but reading becomes a guessing game for the strange words, which will impact their comprehension. As for math, the teachers are pulling out their hair. One day to the next, there is no consistency in their work, and that is if you can read it, and teachers by that time will either put it off as being a behaviour problem, or get an assessment done. The reason why assessment has not been done in the last 4 years, is that they are maintaining a pass.

I am talking about the mild to moderate learning disability kids. The setup is a disaster for these kids. It is a disaster, because no one is paying attention to their writing, their reading and math is often a picture of high and lows. My question to you, since you are in special education, why doesn’t SE teachers get together and start demanding curriculum that will help these children. I cannot understand why, outside of BC, there is no province where SE teachers are sitting at the government table, demanding changes to be made. to the curriculum, and get rid of the mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science that plays havoc in all of the children’s learning.

My question to you, since you are in special education, why doesn’t SE teachers get together and start demanding curriculum that will help these children. I cannot understand why

I am not in Special Education, though I have taught Special Education at various times, but not currently.  In Ontario, teachers with Special Education qualifications learn nothing about curriculum, instructional design or teaching methods appropriate for different exceptionalities. Thus it would be very surprising for Sp. Ed. teachers here to lobby for different curricula, materials, etc.

Teachers do a great deal of direct instruction, and are required to teach their students according to formative assessments (like the Developmental Reading Assessment) at their instructional level. In the elementary grades they can expect to have a 4-6 year spread of achievement in a typical class. Students may have an IEP if the School Support Team or the Principal requests one, as per the guidelines in the Education Act. They do not need to be “Special Ed” kids for this to take place and indeed the Ministry is moving away from “Special Ed” designations.

The 4 or 5 children I have mentioned, have been identified usually by the parents, who have paid a pretty penny for the assessments

This has *never* happened in any school I have worked in in the TDSB. It has never happened that a parent has gotten a private assessment, and most parents do not want an assessment done by TDSB staff either. If they do consent, and the assessment shows an exceptionality (like LD or mild to moderate cognitive disability), the parent almost never wants to proceed to an IPRC for an official designation, and they do not want the assessment in the child’s Ontario School Record (OSR).

Sometimes we can get permission for a Speech/Language assessment or a First Language assessment in the case of English Language Learners; these often have useful teaching suggestions, but do not lead to any kind of special label or placement.

There is so much diversity and variability in the school population that the concept of “learning disabilty” loses most of its meaning and few parents support it. The Ministry’s mandate for full inclusion also militates against identifying individual students with a “learning disability” except in the case of parents who actively seek such a designation because it will enable them to access other services, such as those of the Integra Foundation.

It is a disaster, because no one is paying attention to their writing, their reading and math is often a picture of high and lows

Indeed, teachers and School Support Teams do pay attention to these, but many, many—even a majority, in some classes—children have a profile like this, so the emphasis is on Multiple Intelligences, DIfferentiated Instruction, Learning Styles, and so on. The idea, not always realized, is to keep every student moving forward, though in a classroom there will be wide variability in pace, level of mastery, grasp of concepts, etc.

Most parents in the schools I have worked in, even parents of children who clearly do have some kind of learning disability, do not agree with you, or want what you want. They support the full inclusion, differentiated learning, co-operative grouping, etc. kind of classroom. I’ve only had one parent in the last 5 years pursue Sp. Ed. identification and placement for her child. Most do not want it and they like the “balanced literacy” curriculum. It tends to obscure the skill level differences between students.

Having seen how spectacularly quickly and easily children (even children with severe learning difficulties) can learn given more explicit and concentrated curricula, I find the limited results of the current situation discouraging. However, few teachers or parents agree with me, perhaps because they haven’t seen anything better.

Unfortunately, pseudo-science is the name of the game in education, and always has been.

They had work books for math, and LA.

Workbooks are even more frowned upon than textbooks. Students are supposed to do “authentic” reading, writing and problem-solving. This is generally known as the “Language Experience” approach in LA, not sure what they call it in math.

So for reading and writing, using no good textbooks nor workbooks is called ‘authentic’ reading and writing etc.  It would sure be interesting to hear what babble the educrats use to lable this approach for math—and that it would give everyone a laugh would most likely be its only value..

I seen the same thing with parents both in NL and Ontario. LD has a bad image problem. I don’t even like the way the public education systems defined it. I know very well the feeling, when I had my child assessed. No support coming from the extended family at all. It is the shame factor at play, and it does a heavy number on parents.

I wanted the assessment, to get help for my child’s reading and writing issues. When a child shows the highs and lows between subject areas and also across the span of one subject, are children who have reading issues. I can understand why parents want to keep their children in the regular classroom, so the child is not single out. As parents the special resource room, is still called the stupid room, dumbo room, or the latest the sped room, but is this the shame factor at play here?  I too thought of that, and came up with a plan that would increase my child’s self-esteem, and still be willing to go to the resource room for help.

“Indeed, teachers and School Support Teams do pay attention to these, but many, many—even a majority, in some classes—children have a profile like this, so the emphasis is on Multiple Intelligences, DIfferentiated Instruction, Learning Styles, and so on. The idea, not always realized, is to keep every student moving forward, though in a classroom there will be wide variability in pace, level of mastery, grasp of concepts, etc. “

Where teachers have a hard time are with the students who have the highs and lows academically. The mild to moderate LD student, is hard to define. As for the multiple intelligences, she has strengths in them all, and it varies from subject to subject. The LD kids sitting in the regular classroom are the wildcards, and often teachers are well meaning, done with the best of intentions, are more concern with self-esteem, than dealing with the frustrations these kids are showing in whatever they are learning. The Differentiated Instruction that is occuring in the classrooms, teachers really have to be on the ball with the LD kids. If the pace is too slow, or it has been whittle down as the kids have called it the dumbie status, some will be upset that the teacher thinks he or she is stupid. Others are not upset, because they have to do far less work, and no homework.  Now, I have addressed the problem where at least in high school, the teachers will teach her directly if she is experiencing problems in math and english. If she does not get it after 5 tries, she is told to go to dear old Mom, to get it straighten out. Now that has only happen a couple of times, and it was a weakness in arithmetic that needed addressing. That is hard to determine, within a few minutes in a classroom, and not having the personal knowledge of my child’s problems does not help. It is a whole lot better than getting a note, stating having trouble. 

With balance literacy, and even the math curriculum, does not mesh well with direct instruction, showing them how, giving them examples, before they can understand the why of it, It is the direct opposite. It shows up the most in math classes. Not only do teachers need to be well versed on math, but as well as the learning problems that cropped up in math. For example, a LD study that I took to heart, and practice at home when tutoring my child,  the conclusion was children who have math difficulties, should have a minimum of doing 6 math work problems that is of the same concept. Of course within each concept, there is the exceptions. Six problems of each exception. Probably 60 % of the children sitting in a math class, would benefit from this type of exercise to reach mastery. This is just one example of the research in math, most of coming out ot the LD research field. The funny thing, the tutors many of them keep up with the research, so they can be more effective with their students, and of course keep the parents happy.

In my opinion, the teachers including the SE teachers, should be pushing for changes,  just on the stats alone. They should be pushing for changes, at the high school level. It is here where the high schools are dealing with the problems that were not addressed in the elementary years. The majority of the problems can be traced back to the various levels of mastery that the students have, and some bad learning habits, that does nothing for learning advance work. I would not want the job of a high school teacher in today’s world.

TDSBNW, I’m astounded about what you’re telling me about your experience.  I believe you.  Why, though, wouldn’t parents push for assessments, identification and services that will help the child?

TDSBNW-

Having seen how spectacularly quickly and easily children (even children with severe learning difficulties) can learn given more explicit and concentrated curricula, I find the limited results of the current situation discouraging.

I APPLAUD YOU-THESE ARE THE RATIONAL EMOTIONS OF A CONSCIENTIOUS EDUCATOR-

There are more of you out there than you know-you are many of you-afraid to say anything .It`s political.
For those of you who care and are enlightened,it`s a toxic environment riddled with bureaucracy.That`s a tough scene for a caring educator.

Dave, the best that I ever had read on the subject why parents do not push for assessments, identification and services, is on the Children of the Code site.

“Most children who struggle with reading experience the struggle as a reflection of something wrong with themselves - something to be ashamed of. Unintentionally but pervasively, parents, schools, and society as a whole contribute to perpetuating this insidious myth. Children don’t think that their reading troubles might be due to a normal difference in their genes and brains analogous to being tall or short - they don’t think that maybe their parents, siblings, and other care-givers didn’t engage them in enough conversation before they started school - they don’t think that perhaps their teachers didn’t teach them correctly - they don’t think the confusion they experience is a consequence of an archaic and artificially complex ‘code’ that presents a completely unnatural processing challenge to their brains… no, they blame themselves - they feel ashamed of themselves - ashamed of their minds. Statements like: “I’m dumb”, “I’m stupid”, “I’m not smart”, “I’m not good in school” are all strategies to protect themselves from the shame they feel.”

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/

This is compounded by emotions and feelings by the parents, especially by mothers. Did I eat right while carrying her?  Did I do something wrong? These feelings sometimes are overwhelming for a parent, that the best thing to do, is to continue pretending nothing is wrong with your healthy child. Parents who are more willing to do something, are parents whose child was born pre-mature, or something else that they can give themselves permission to seek an assessment. In today’s society, the invisible learning problems still have a stigma attached, especially the difficulties in reading.

From a parent’s viewpoint, schools that ignored the science and advances that have been made in the reading and writing problems, actually enables parents not to get help for their children.

Yes, Nancy, when children aren’t taught properly, and therefore can’t pick up the skills, they believe it’s themselves who are at fault—just like when their parents get a divorce or when they’re abused.  Adults seem to understand that children will blame themselves and there is help for children from broken homes or who have been abused; however in the educational system, the child is blamed, treated differently, and carries this burden for the rest of his lift and this is how this supposedly caring educational system builds self-esteem in children!

Bev, the self-esteem programs running in the public school systems, are a mockery. They do more harm to self-esteem of children. One that rankles me, is the child coming home, always comparing themselves to the top achievers of the class. That if they acted more like them, do things in the same way, they too would get a good grade. The only trouble is that learning in the same way as one of the top achievers, will not do much good, if reading skills are not at the same level as the top achievers.

Self-esteem programs at school are all about external models for the most part, and not models that build self-esteem using internal motivation. At least I found this in the schools. The schools should be promoting steady improvement based on the individual, and not use models such as the top achiever and his way of doing things. It is something that I had to deal with on a regular basis, with my child. It is not really a factor today, but it was sure hard to have my child think of herself as an individual, with her own unique learning patterns, when it was being undone when she enter the school doors.

TDSBNW, I’m astounded about what you’re telling me about your experience.  I believe you.  Why, though, wouldn’t parents push for assessments, identification and services that will help the child?

Dave, these factors vary by region, population and cultural background. In general, middle class parents are more likely to seek out assessment and, if appropriate, LD designation for their child. They are aware of the legal benefits and entitlements that the designation confers, and are usually able to lobby for the accommodations, modifications and services they seek (they are not always successful, of course, but they tend to be well-informed, hire professionals if needed, and take an active role in ensuring their child’s needs are met. This often involves private services as well as the school system).

Lower-income families do not have the same resources available, are often suspicious of “Special Education” (with good reason – subject for another time), are wary of having their child labeled or stigmatized in any way, and instead prefer to deal with the child’s learning issues in the context of the regular class and whatever other general assistance is available – homework clubs,  peer tutors, family members who can help, and so forth.  Recent immigrants (who may be very well-educated in their home country) are unfamiliar with the machinations of the school system, tend to be overtrusting and optimistic that things will work out over time. Some cultural groups actively resist any kind of “special ed” or assessments or interventions, even non-Special Ed programs like Reading Recovery or ESL.

The exception seems to be parents of children with severe disabilities or extreme behaviour problems. These children are challenging and exhausting to their families as well, and often the parents want and appreciate whatever help the system can provide. They also pursue other available resources through health and social services outside the school system.

In fact, getting an assessment done, or even a special education identification accomplished, rarely changes much for most kids, at least in the TDSB.  Few services are available, the teachers, while very committed, are not specially trained, and as the Auditor’s report on Special Education has confirmed several times, there is no indication that the results are better than they would be if the child received no services at all.  Many parents would rather do the best they can in the maimstream setting than potentially limit their child’s options by “labeling” or segregating him or her.

Some school boards do have good special education programs, based on research and evidence of effectiveness. I have mentioned both the TCDSB and Waterloo DSB in this regard; I am sure there are others as well.  Services for children with multiple exceptionalities, severe cognitive or health impairments, are also pretty good in many instances.

This discussion about special ed reminds me of a piece of advice I received when attending a program for new immigrants to get Canadian work experience and references in our field by working as volunteers.

In one of the sessions about the school system in Ontario I remember a teacher or counselor specifically telling us that if we have children we need to be very careful about not having our children labeled in school and placed in special programs.
I remember asking the same question as Dave: why wouldn’t we want them go get help?

His answer was that once a child is placed in special ed he almost never gets useful help and therefore never catches up and goes back to mainstream. So special ed does not solve problems of not achieving; it just labels the child forerever and curtails his later options.

He said that special ed is not about tutoring and helping a child catch up; it is about lowering expectations so that the child can achieve something at his own level.

He said that we should consider special ed only if our child is so severely disabled that it needs medical help.

I remember being very shocked at the time because it didn’t make sense. Why would you have special programs if they don’t help a kid catch up?

Europe, it goes back to the SE structure. The counselor is correct in one way about special education. It labels the child, lowers the expectations, and it is rare for the child to received services correcting the weaknesses that impacts learning. The structure is set up in such a way, where the majority of children do not get the one service they need, and that is reading correction help. The majority of children who have been identified are the children with reading problems. The majority of children do not need any other service, but the educational service regarding reading, writing and numeracy. The same children do not need life skills, or high tech equipment, or even a student aid, They just need help for the reading, writing, and numeracy problems.

On the average, basing it on previous stats that some provinces carries, but not Ontario, the average LD population in a school is about or below 7 % of the total school population. Most kids are either never identified or have been mislabeled under a different category, or they have multiple learning disorders. In the case of multiple disorders, the worst disorder is selected. So in the example of a child having ADHD and LD, the label would be ADHD, under the stats. In Newfoundland the stats are published, for the province, by boards, and the individual schools. The stats for LD are as followed,
for NL in the year 2009 to 2010.

Province, Labrador (L), Western (W), Central Nova (NC), Eastern (E), and the French board (F)

Combine the groups of ADHD without LD, ADHD with LD, Learning Disability, and Speech/Language Disorders, as groups that are based on historical data that are likely to be composed on having learning difficulties in reading, writing and numeracy. Most of the students are sitting in the regular classroom, and only a small portion of them go to SE classes, or received target help for their reading,writing and numeracy.

The province - Out of a student population of 69,665 there is 5813 students that have been as having LD, or ADHD or a speech/language disorder. The percentage for the whole province is 8.3 %.

Out of the SE population for the province there is a total of 10,671 SE students, with 5813 SE students identified as having LD, or ADHD or a speech/language disorder. The sub-groups represent 55 % of the SE population for the province.

At each board the percentage of the SE population for LD, or ADHD or a speech/language disorder are:
L - 54 %
W- 47 %
NC- 62 %
E - 54 %
F - 19 %

The stats of each board mimics closely to the provincial stats. The NL stats have improve on identification of children, but in services to the largest SE sub-group who many of them have issues in reading, writing or numeracy, and need targeted help for their weaknesses, a few are only receiving the service. The only help available at the school level, is inside the classroom and of course SE class, where remediation is offer as the only service.

http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/publications/k12/stats/index.html

Europe, on the comment, “He said that special ed is not about tutoring and helping a child catch up; it is about lowering expectations so that the child can achieve something at his own level.”.

This is very true, no matter what province. Each province is the same in providing little targeted help for reading,writing and numeracy weaknesses. It is a structure deficit, where the largest SE sub-groups goes without services, because of the high needs of the rest of the SE population. The largest sub-group has to take a back seat, because their needs are based on the educational component, that requires trained staff and time. It is much easier and cost effective, to lower expectations of the students and in part the parents. The only thing that saves some of the students, are the teachers at the schools. It is the boards that prevents the largest sub-group of SE student from receiving effective reading, writing and numeracy help,

It is micro-managing on the board’s part to control the costs of SE, and when they showcase the wonderful increases in funding, they use the children who have the high needs over and above the students who need only reading, writing and numeracy help.

Well, if you don’t teach children to read, of course they would need help with reading.

I thought the whole point of going to school was to learn to read, write and do basic math.
Otherwise why are we even sending our kids to school?
Is the elementary school a free baby-sitting service?

“Is the elementary school a free baby-sitting service/”

Well, come September it will be for kindergarten.