I have to wonder what this says about the dependence and use of the Internet in the classroom? More importantly what steps taken to move away from those computers and back to blackboards and direct instruction by a human?

My second child was given a contraption called a Dream Writer in first grade before she could read of spell.

Each child rec’d one. Imagine our surprise when darling child suggested that she didn’t learn to know how to spell because the computer did it for her and the teacher said so. 

The Dream Writers didn’t last very long as they required frequent maintenance as little hands dropped them often.

Lucky for this child her Kindergarten teacher ignored the whole language police at the school and did teach phonics, and by working with her at home she did eventually learn spelling rules and how to read.

I also remember the parent-teacher conference in Grade 5 when the teacher told us that she couldn’t believe how bad the students were at basic spelling.

I’m pretty sure that each successive teacher had to pick up the slack for what this group of kids didn’t get in Grade 1.

Ms. Dare,

Having worked in high tech all my adult life, I’ve seen lot’s of hype regarding the use and misuse of it.  Very rarely does the reality rise above the mundane.

Regarding this particular topic, I’ve read many articles - all of which have been debunked by science.  Here are two links to articles that look at both sides of the issue:

http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/high-tech-gadgets-addiction-dependency-or-hype/

http://neuroconscience.com/2010/06/08/snorkeling-’the-shallows’-whats-the-cognitive-trade-off-in-internet-behavior/

All that being said, do children take things too far?  In fact, I would say that a far greater threat to the younger generation misusing modern technology would be the fact that we are raising a generation of passive couch potatoes.  They need to get up and move more and interact with people in a more positive and direct manner.

I have to wonder what this says about the dependence and use of the Internet in the classroom? More importantly what steps taken to move away from those computers and back to blackboards and direct instruction by a human?

I have yet to see an elementary school in the TDSB where kids had regular—or ANY—access to the internet or to computers generally during the instructional day.  The resources simply are not out there for that. I’m glad to see blackboards supplanted by whiteboards (less dust, easier to read), but high tech? Internet? You gotta be kidding. Now, some schools (in well-to-do areas, or special schools ( like River Oaks in Halton or Joyce in TDSB) *do* have those resources, but no school I’ve been in has them, and the computers available are for Grades 7-8 (computer lab) and/or for special ed students (SEA claim computers, Language Labs).

Many classrooms have no computer at all, and those that do have only one. Students may take turns using the classroom computer, but that will usually be something like 20 minutes every 2 weeks.

Surveys show that most of our students do not have internet access at home.  The “digital divide” is very real, but I don’t think it’s a big threat at the elementary level.

TDSBSW - “I have yet to see an elementary school in the TDSB where kids had regular—or ANY—access to the internet or to computers generally during the instructional day.”  -

You’re kidding right? Where’d all of the money enveloped for technological resources go that the governments gave your board?

It’s standard fare at our school for all grades with students rotating to use the computer lab as they would use the library in blocks at least twice a week.

That’s also where the “gifted” kids go for their advanced programs. If they’re lucky they’ll be put into service to help classroom teachers with their computers. Every classroom has it’s own computer too.

Now fundraising for Smart Boards also.

Chuck, I can’t speak for the TDSB.  However, from the way our board operates, the envelopes aren’t as exclusive as the MOE makes out to be.  Envelopes seem to be rough guidelines.

I agree with Wayne as usual.

Chuck’s school must be mostly middle-class or above. Even if, mirabile disctu, every classrom were scheduled to go to the computer lab, the computer lab would be booked solid and each class would go fewer than one time every 2 weeks. But, there are not enough computers in the lab for every student in the grades 4-8 classes to work at a computer: because of the primary class size cap, the upper grades are huge—up to 37-38.  As it is, the P/J classes only go if their teachers sign up for one of the “open” periods during the cycle. Grades 7 and 8 go on a regular basis, 1-2 times per cycle, because the computer lab is for them.

As for how TDSB spends its technology funds, I know two things:
(1) Funds go disproportionately to schools that are already advantaged, because the parents in those schools have political clout. “To him that hath, it shall be given.”

(2) “Sweatered” monies in a particular envelope—whether it is Special Education or something else—does not have to be spent on the area for which it is allocated.  All the board has to do is not spend the money during the fiscal year for which it is allocated. At the end of the fiscal year, those funds go into “reserves,” and after that, the funds can be spent on anything.

(3) When the board variance reports were published online, the TDSB situation was very interesting. TDSB was always wailing about not enough money for textbooks, for caretaking, for maintenance, for furniture, for utilities—but guess what? They underspent by a large amount in every one of thse categories. They were not spending the textbook money they got, for example. It all went into reserves.

Now, I hear you ask, what DID they spend money on? Well, they spent about six times what they were allocated for “central administration.” That’s how they fund the Director of Useless Projects, the Superintendent of Boondoggles, the Assistant Co-Ordinator for Paper-Shuffling, and all those other highly paid bureaucrats at 5050 Yonge STreet.

Don’t think any of that goes to teachers, who have to buy their own classroom supples and instructional materials out of their own pocket. Meanwhile, they cut Educational Assistants who actully provide a whopping value for the dollars spent. And technology? Who knows?

I’m a big fan of EAs.  I’d go so far as to say that at the elementary level, you’d be better off ditching most of the computers and replacing them with EAs.
Aside comment for further thought:  EAs can go a long way to address the class size issue, also.

The STAR research in Tennessee basically said, your best investment with your classroom personel dollar is more teachers and smaller classes.

STAR said those class sizes had to be about 15 or less. 
BUT more important, it said that an effective teacher can make a huge difference in improvement over one year, but a bad teacher two years in a row can be devastating and the effects so lasting that the student will never recover.

No, they said it would be best at 15 but serious inprovement starts below 20.

A good teacher is better than a bad one? You don’t say!

TDSBSW - yes, the schools in this region are pretty middle class and we’re small/rural but we seem to have been outfitted well with the latest technologies….maybe too much.

“(3) When the board variance reports were published online, the TDSB situation was very interesting. TDSB was always wailing about not enough money for textbooks, for caretaking, for maintenance, for furniture, for utilities—but guess what? They underspent by a large amount in every one of thse categories. They were not spending the textbook money they got, for example. It all went into reserves.

Now, I hear you ask, what DID they spend money on? Well, they spent about six times what they were allocated for “central administration.“ That’s how they fund the Director of Useless Projects, the Superintendent of Boondoggles, the Assistant Co-Ordinator for Paper-Shuffling, and all those other highly paid bureaucrats at 5050 Yonge STreet.”

that’s just disgusting. For how long did this go on? Why wasn’t there a revolt of this abuse of funds? Where were the outcries from parents?

What about those school board trustees who like to talk a big talk about being accountable? How could trustees let that happen - unless of course they have absolutely no power to affect how their funds are spent.

I appreciate you for sharing this with me and I give mega kudos for speaking up.

May I ask you TDSBSW how you’ve been aided as an educator by your board? trustees? union? when all of this money got sucked into the black hole that seems to be the TDSB?

Doretta - you trumped the usual suspect….again!

In an somewhat related story it seems that taking the technology away from the kiddies is giving those who run summer camps a pain.

Read on http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/06/29/14560836.html

I am surprised that rural NL, with all its problems,compared to the Toronto board,  at least the schools are fully equipped with computer labs, and the tech programs to go along with them, starting at grade 1. Smart boards where put in the local elementary school, in each classroom two years ago, and now the local high school has smart boards in each classroom. As far as I know, it is not a major complaint on the island portion. I am not sure about Labrador. But government policy for the last 5 years and going back further, was to make every community Internet connected, no matter how far or how remote. The other part is that the residents of NL, over 90 % have computers and are connected to the Internet. It probably help the boards to prioritized their funding, with current policy direction of the government and the use of home computers at the home front.

It is the norm in NL. But perhaps this was helped by the Bill Gates Foundation, and other corporations that helped in the beginning to get computers in the schools. You be surprised how NL residents even in the more rural parts are so connected and love their technology. Even the RCMP is complaining how it is used in crime activity in smuggling. They wanted more funding, to get the same type of technology.

The STAR study was done in Tennessee.  As Doug has told us repeatedly conditions in the US and Canada are very different.

There may well be all sorts of variables between conditions here and there needed to determine the pure value of the smaller classes. Here in Ontario the reductions are more in the range of 23 to 20, not 25+ to 15-16.  We’re spending big bucks for minor reductions in class size.

Oh please, if this board wants to laud something like KIPP or Vouchers or the Bushes or a New Jersey Governor, then everything from the USA is relevant but when a study says class size is critical then all of a sudden it is American so it has nothing to tell us. Class size is class size everywhere and everybody knows it.

We make minor class size reductions so that we can make more later from a lower base and then we will lower again and when we are done we will lower again John. There is no end to lowering class size.

On the plus size for you it is free because the social offsets more than pay for it as society gets richer, and more just due to the class size reductions.

Doug, most of the studies confirm class size makes no difference after primary grades. Plus reducing it further, there is very little gain after to justify the costs. Schools have a hard enough problem having two classes in each grade, add another one, then the problem becomes space.

Class size makes a difference at all levels. It just makes a greater difference at the primary level.

http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/classsize.html

Hmmm…

  I suspect that link may be a little dodgy; it refers us to Doug’s site.  I suspect we’ll find evidennce he’s putting out to support his POV.

May not be entirely balanced or unbiased.

Apart from that…;)

All I do is site study after study that says class size helps at all levels. You can check the studies yourself.

I haven’t noticed the private schools had stopped advertising their small class sizes and individual attention at all levels. I just want the same for everybody.

“Now, I hear you ask, what DID they spend money on? Well, they spent about six times what they were allocated for “central administration.“ That’s how they fund the Director of Useless Projects, the Superintendent of Boondoggles, the Assistant Co-Ordinator for Paper-Shuffling, and all those other highly paid bureaucrats at 5050 Yonge STreet.“

TDSBNW and Wayne, in his post on teacher freedom, have illustrated why freedom from bureaucract boards that school choice offers is a good thing for teachers.

Nancy - Newfloundland’s a “have” province now. Ontario thanks to Dalton McGuinty’s loose spending is now a “have not” province.

We’re also spending “big bucks” and gettin less and less for those dollars. The tipping point will come when taxpayers start demanding value for their money.

I agree Nancy a good teacher is a good teacher with 30 kids or 13 kids. A bad teacher is bad with 2 two kids.
Small classes guarantee nothing except a plumped up teacher roster.

You can crank out all the studies you want but reality points to something else entirely dude. Most folks here know that by experience your arguments just don’t hold water.

Keep those fingers in your ears Mr Sheep, it is clear that you have no interest in academic studies that conflict with you pre-existing bias. Too bad small classes are a high priority for parents and will remain so. Once again you re in the distinct minority of citizens not just parents, so your common sense is not so commonly held.

Doug, the Star studies were followed up by Heroes.

In the Heroes summary: “Data from the pilot study showed that over the years, the students from small classes were less likely to fail a grade level, or be suspended than their peers who were in regular and regular/aide classes. Small-class students were found to be making better grades in their high school courses and to be taking more advanced courses than students from the other two cohorts. This enabled investigators to compare the academic paths taken by STAR small, regular, and
regular-aide class students.”

Heroes had serious difficulties following the students. The small class group, had higher scores, but nothing to rave about. Even in the small class group, there was still retentions, but were lower than the other two groups.

The need to study different factors such as teacher quality, the curriculum, the whole language approaches may be the very factors that over ride small class size advantage. Students in small classes in primary grades, do have an edge over other students, but the effect decreases over time.
http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm

As for Alberta, class size are guidelines.
http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/commission/report/reality/school/implement.aspx

Present class sizes for Alberta
http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/classsize/avarage2010.aspx

Total of Alberta’s Student Population: 585, 397

http://education.alberta.ca/department/stats/students.aspx

In Ontario - student population is 2,087, 588

Alberta, like some other provinces can easily have smaller classes. In Ontario, it cannot be easily done, under the present funding system. If anything, the difficulties points in the direction of the centralized education system, where schools are limited to their approaches, and to respond to change within their student population.

I agree Nancy a good teacher is a good teacher with 30 kids or 13 kids. A bad teacher is bad with 2 two kids.
Small classes guarantee nothing except a plumped up teacher roster.

The data do not support your hypothesis. Class size is a variable that depends on other things: what is to be taught, to whom it is to be taught, for what purpose it is to be taught, how it is to be taught, and so on.

Class size, in and of itself, is not determinant; it is subordinate to other factors.

Siegfried Engelmann found that “low performers”—kids who need remediation, have special educational needs like autism, language disability, cultural deprivation, low IQ and so forth, must be taught in groups of five or fewer. You can argue with him if you like, but he has data on tens of thousands of students, and can produce results for “impossible” kids that no one else could teach. But his people couldn’t teach them either, except in groups of >=5.

Honours students and advanced students can be taught in groups of up to several hundred in a lecture/demonstraton format.  Honours students in secondary school often do quite well in classes of 30-40, but their contemporaries with learning difficulties may succeed only in groups of 10 or fewer; students with autism often learn exclusively in a 1:1 setting for a considerable period of time.

Remedial teaching, because it must be accelerated (learning has to take place at 3-5 times the normal rate) also requires a small group setting.

Teaching of certain skills and crafts requires small group or individual teaching because of the nature of the work (would you go to a cardiovascular surgeon who had learned his craft exclusively from lectures or watching DVDs? Would you hire a plumber whose skills were gleaned that way?)

Some skills must be taught in such a way that the learner can receive immediate corrective feedback, so the instructor must be able to monitor the learner’s every action or response.  The teacher who is outstanding at imparting skills to individuals or small groups may be totally ineffective in a class of 30.Similarly, teachers who excel at teaching in a large classroom may be bored to tears in1:1 or small group teaching. “Nothing happens,” they tell me.“I need more stimulation.”

You will be happy to know, I’m sure, that your sentiments are exactly those of board administration. “A teacher is a teacher is a teacher.” Just an interchangeable part to be moved around for administrative convenience. Skills? Aptitudes?Expertise? Knowledge? Vocation? Commitment?

Tush, irrelevant.

Endless excuses when what parents and teacher both want is smaller classes which are supported in research and popular in polling even from people without children in schools.

Interesting that the much lauded private schools do not advertise there classroom methods to attract business, they promote their small class sizes. I am prepared to slow down when every class in Ontario is capped at 15 students K-12. Universities and colleges are another disaster in this area.

SE is another whole thing. Eight is too many by far. Prolongued 1-1 is required in many cases.

TDSBNW - I totally agree with your post about class size.  I’ve been saying this for years.

“SE is another whole thing. Eight is too many by far. Prolongued 1-1 is required in many cases.”

Doug, that statement is not rational, or even well-thought out, taking in the many different variables. What TDSBNW stated is correct, “Class size, in and of itself, is not determinant; it is subordinate to other factors.”