When I read the new head of Ontario’s EQAO response, to me, it was absurd:  he specifically points to the poverty-stricken children who may not benefit academically from jr and sr kindergarten but alludes to the idea that they may benefit in other ways.  WHAT OTHER WAYS?  Isn’t school supposed to be about educating children; yet the head of EQAO says not to judge results simply by academic achievement?  His comments are confounding:  it’s like saying that one should not judge a company simply by its product—that there are other benefits that the company offers customers.  In other words, the letter writer, (like everyone else defending lousy achievement levels in our taxpayer-funded public schools) makes absolutely no sense when you apply his logic to the real world.

To add to Bev’s comments - ” EQAO research has shown that students whose language and cognitive development is “on track” in senior kindergarten are considerably more likely to meet the provincial standard in these subjects. EQAO studies have shown a clear relationship between early achievement and achievement in high school.

It’ll take several years to determine the full impact of this program, and its benefits will need to be judged on more than just academics – particularly for children in poverty. If it is successful, then its cost will be an investment with exponential human, social and economic returns.”

I had to chuckle over that one for a number of reasons. The least of which, many parents who have sent their children to private nursery schools, are now paying for the private tutoring lessons at the high school level, on the knowledge and skills gaps of their public or private schooled children. I highly doubt that kindergarten, the number of hours spent in kindergarten has little to do with achievement in high school. However, kindergarten is a good place for kids to cement their skills necessary to learned to read, write, simple numeracy and other academic work for the primary grades.

Although, due to the very nature of the pedagogy and practices of the education stakeholders, there is no guarantee for children entering grade 1 who have the appropriate language and cognitive skills will do well in the primary grades. Over the years, I have heard and read far too many stories of children who were average to above in language and cognitive skills at the kindergarten level who are now struggling in the primary grades in learning the 3 Rs. I point to the curriculum and instruction methods of the primary grades that leads to the prior learning, the methods and practices in the early years prior to grade 1.

The one study and only one study that EQAO is basing their remarks on is this one - http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/theresearchisin.html -  “Comparisons of children with two years of FDK instruction and children with no FDK instruction showed that FDK:

  Reduced risks in social competence development from 10.5 per cent to 5.2 per cent.
  Reduced risks in language and cognitive development from 16.4 per cent to 4.3 per cent.
  Reduced risks in communication skills and general knowledge development from 10.5 per cent to 5.6 per cent.”

What exactly are the measurements being used??  To answer my question, I went to the curriculum documents for kindergarten. The first one, “CMEC Statement on Play-Based Learning”  http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/282/play-based-learning_statement_EN.pdf

People don’t have a problem that playing is learning. People have a problem when the only pedagogy at play is the Lev Vygotskys’ of the early 20th century identified play as the leading source of development
in terms of emotional, social, physical, language, or cognitive development. As noted in Wikipedia - ” the founder of a theory of human cultural and biosocial development commonly referred to as cultural-historical psychology, and leader of the Vygotsky Circle.”
Vygotsky and his ilk, has always given short shift to the cognitive development of children, and more importantly the cognitive processes that leads to basic reading, writing and numeracy.

Moving onto the next document - the full day kindergarten program - a reference guide - http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kinder2010.pdf

Vygotsky would be so proud if he was alive today. Now the next document is the 2010-11 document for Full Day Kindergarten - 162 pages to read - http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten_english_june3.pdf

Whatever children they are are describing, I never had a child that could used a glue gun, build intricate and complex pieces out of the recycle bin, or sit down creating signs by writing the words in, in order to explain the physics or the chemistry or the rules in behind their creation. Not at the age of 4 or 5….......and certainly not by themselves or with other kids without adults showing them the way. As I was reading the bit about water and boats, what would the university trained teachers along with the EC worker do, with a kid that took a newspaper, created the boat with a few folds and asked where is the melted wax?

I am beginning to wonder, if the education experts think parents are short of a few brain cells when they allow their kids to play without adult interference. The Ontario documents have made it very clear, that play-based learning is recognized by the scientific community. Then why does the Ontario documents downplay the cognitive science of the 21st century, that states difficulties in some areas of cognitive development,may lead to learning difficulties in reading, writing and numeracy in grade 1, and may also indicate a learning disability. http://www.helpguide.org/mental/learning_disabilities.htm

I read as much as I could find about EQAO’s new CEO, Bruce Rodrigues.  There was absolutely nothing written about his educational background, nor a single word about some of his actual accomplishments, while in his other positions, that improved the quality of education delivered, and test scores.  (Most likely because there were no improvements.)  There was a little about his employment history—he did teach high school math, so one can assume that he has some post-secondary math, and also an OTC or equivalent.  There were only platitudes and a great deal of shallow lauding, which implied that things would improve for the better now that Rodrigues would be taking this new position. (Which is most likely very highly paid, and of course footed by taxpayers.)  A few of his pet phrases were quoted, and went something like, ‘all schools are good schools’ and another was, ‘all kids are our kids’. 
In the real world, with no accomplished track record in the field in which Rodrigue is supposed to be an expert, would this guy be hired?  One can only surmise that, if you can get away with it—especially at the taxpayers’ expense—why not?

In no way would I pick on Bruce Rodriguez.

He was the Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction at Waterloo Catholic as well he spent 2 years at Toronto Catholic as the Director of Education.

I think his interest in the job at EQAO is interesting in and of itself,after all he applied.

His glib statements about children are real,he loves children,it`s very hard in these institutions that are political minefields to make a real contribution.I`m sure he`ll try.

When I trained 42 special ed reading teachers at Algonquin Catholic,the order came from a kind hearted Director of Education.He`s gone now so I can tell the story.
At the back of the room,behind the teachers,sat 4 Superintendents,SEETHING,because I was teaching the teachers about phonemes,graphemes and segmentation.
Don`t kid yourself,the reading war is real and in spite of teaching being an 8 month course after a B.A.,they`ll shoot you down with a machine gun,(once they are Superintendents)if you disagree with their ‘opinion”.

I think Bruce will make a contribution,it`s COMPLICATED!

More:  perhaps EQAO’s CEO, Bruce Rodrigues’s letter in the Globe was a message to all his union buddies and other educrats that he’s still on their side.  He essentially was saying NOT to judge schools simply by academic achievement—in other words, regardless of lousy test scores, bullying, and large numbers of sick days taken (averaging 15/annum by teachers, & mostly on fridays and Mondays) all of my former co-workers are doing an excellent job! 
Most educrats are in pretty thick with one another, so it wouldn’t surprise me, plus it also makes sense of an otherwise ridiculous statement by Rodrigues that one should not judge education simply by academic achievement!

Jo-Anne, as much as I respect your opinion, you haven’t given me a single concrete reason to agree with you regarding Rodrigues:  you stated that Rodrigues was in charge of curricula at the Waterloo DSB.  Did he improve curricula/teaching methods so that test scores went up?  What else has he done to improve academic achievement, and the well-being of children in his charge?  What is his educational background?
 
My point was that nothing is written about these people nor their past achievements when they move on to yet another, even higher-paying job.  What do they actually have to do to get there?

Spent a hour or so surfing the net on Rodriguez. Where is he the most -  over at the Catholic Church files. Plenty of interviews…....however I can’t even find out if he has kids. Rodriguez over the years has left very little trace in the education files - his nose has been kept to the grindstone and staying out of the newspapers and in the education circles. Although, I did run across a few pages, exclaiming that Rodriguez is a popular speaker. Popular speaker to whom??  Search the warehouse of files at the OISE and other teacher faculties….....looking for his name…..no dice and nothing came up, even in the files of mathematics and literacy research.

The video of Rodriguez - his introduction - http://vimeo.com/73154088

Which really did not tell me much…......although little one liners in the news article - such as, “Bruce Rodrigues, EQAO’s chief executive officer, agrees.

It’s not unusual for someone to say “I don’t do math,” said Rodrigues. “It almost seems to be acceptable.”
http://www.flamboroughreview.com/news/millgrove-aces-eqao/

It gets even better, Rodrigues will bring up an old excuse for the dismal math achievement, all dressed up in new window dressing. ” “There’s no mystery who the students not meeting the provincial standard in secondary school are. We’ve been tracking their difficulties since elementary school. While the school system has been able to change the path of many students, there are still far too many whose struggles are just compounding year after year.” “EQAO’s bias-free tests help answer a vital question: are kids learning the reading, writing and math skills The Ontario Curriculum says they should be learning? Ontarians have the right to know, objectively and honestly, how students in our schools are doing.” — Bruce Rodrigues, Chief Executive Officer, EQAO “
http://technews.tmcnet.com/news/2013/09/25/7436883.htm

And the video - where the EQAO tells the parents to teach their children that one minute equals 60 seconds and 60 minutes = 1 hour or that 25 cents = .25 = 1/4 and all the important math facts that are no longer in the horrible math text books - is all about another math concept being poorly taught at the public schools - proportional reasoning. Is there any wonder, why kids are struggling in high school math? Meanwhile, the educators especially over at places like the EQAO are telling the public and the teachers its all about engagement….....unreal…......and no mentioned why the standard algorithm for proportional reasoning has been banned.  The poor grade 3 student who simply divided 5 into 100 to find out how many nickles in $1.00 on the EQAO would get a low mark. Too boring and not creative enough. Shudder to think what the grade six student would get for his advance thinking of - 5/1.00 times 100/x would get for his troubles. Using the banned methods is a no-no. http://vimeo.com/74758579

The last quote - “Bruce Rodrigues said that there was no mystery about the students who had failed to meet provincial standards for math in secondary schools as they had had difficulties in the subject since their elementary years. Even though the education system is beneficial for many students, many others continue to struggle every year, he said. Mr Rodrigues is the CEO of EQAO.”  http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/509062/20130926/canada-fails-math-eqao-poor-scores-results.htm#.UlGr5FOc5jj

I agree with Bev - no doubt in my mind - another one without the math background but apparently Rodrigues has the qualifications when it comes to making assessments . But I still can’t find his educational background, besides his own catholic education as a youth in the K to 12.  I did find some interesting things about his administration, that gives way - he runs a very tight ship, where parents are to be control.

On Zoom - no education background at all! When people hide their educational background in the education section - it usually means - they don’t have the educational background.  http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/person?personId=184688742&targetid=profile

But I will keep searching using different terms until I hit the jackpot. Meanwhile, it be more of the same at the EQAO, and with Rodrigues even more creative reasons without even telling a lie.

He did at Waterloo Catholic.
Look at the 5 year scores,much higher than the public board.

At Toronto Catholic,these school boards are massive bureaucracies-they are like cities,I presented there 5-6 years ago with research from 2 schools that increased their success dramatically in 3 months-  a psychologist from their board actually executed the study.
All DISCIPLINES WERE PRESENT AT THE PRESENTATION.
The psychologist had to walk me out at the end and say after I was tarred and feathered,she was sorry for the behaviour of her colleagues and apologized.

Dr.Reid Lyon is famous for saying,“we don`t have a kid problem,we have an adult problem.”
Look at the story of a psychologist who snuck it in to do research,she almost lost her job.It`s not about anything rational,it`s an ego driven sector.
In it,there are all kinds of good people who care and try,it`s not always possible.
I still have the research if you want to see it,however,the person who compiled it may get fired.Can`t live with that…if it helped,okay…but it won`t.

He`s been there 30 days,give him a break!

These tirades of tearing people down seem absurd.
Why not call on the Literacy and Numeracy secretariat,it`s their curriculum and guidelines.
I don`t believe in lynching and I`m in the trenches ever day like you are!

pobod

The Perry Study from Michigan demolishes all of these arguments. It tracked the kids who got the program and those who did not into adulthood. The adults who had been given the progam:

Had higher incomes, better jobs, lower incarceration rates, more home ownership, and a host of other positive social and economic outcomes.

http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?ContentId=219

Corporate reformers always seem to complain, too many PA Days, day is too shory, year is too short. Progressives say OK if that is the way you feel we will add years to a childs education at the early years that Maria Montessori showed was when the mind is most open. She called it “the absorbant mind”.

She felt kids should be in school as soon as they are toilet trained into “Casa Bambini”. To this day, middle class people line up to pay for Montessori School.

We simply need to extend this to the masses and make sure it is part of public education. I would begin at age 2, free of course but also fully optional.

For those who believe it is not a magic bullet, fine keep your kids out until age 6 not problem. My bet - 95% addendance.

Rodrigues’s letter to the editor in the Globe disappointed me.  It’s the same old edubabble about educating the whole child, and saying that academic achievement isn’t the be all and end all.  Since I was disapponted, I looked him up and was angered to read the banal notes about him.  I don’t think that this is the least bit absurd.
You know full well, Jo-Anne that the educational system is miserably failing children—that’s why you’re in the trenches.
In my opinion, investigating these people should always be done.  You happen to know him on a personal level, and believe in him; I’m going strictly by what I’ve seen written about him, and what he wrote in his letter.  As I had said earlier, in the real world, with no track record, he wouldn’t have been hired.

Pushing the old chestnut of the Perry study, that took place in better economic times, and hey enough money to buy groceries and clothing for the kids. “his study — perhaps the most well-known of all HighScope research efforts — examines the lives of 123 children born in poverty and at high risk of failing in school.

From 1962–1967, at ages 3 and 4, the subjects were randomly divided into a program group that received a high-quality preschool program based on HighScope’s participatory learning approach and a comparison group who received no preschool program. In the study’s most recent phase, 97% of the study participants still living were interviewed at age 40. Additional data were gathered from the subjects’ school, social services, and arrest records.

The study found that adults at age 40 who had the preschool program had higher earnings, were more likely to hold a job, had committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to have graduated from high school than adults who did not have preschool. “

As for home ownership - got in before the prices went into the stratosphere. Got in before the drive by shootings, the rampant drug pushing and all the recessions that got governments going to cut the social net and give out corporate welfare.

That said, no one is against pre-schooling, all day kindergarten but it should not be standardized as what Ontario is doing. Different needs for different kids in different communities should be the ideal goal but when there is the high salaries of university trained teachers standing along side with early childhood educators or workers, what falls along the wayside?  The unique learning needs of the wee ones, and the communities. The inevitable outcomes are watered down programs for the students in order to pay for the salaries and the bells/whistles of the big administration behind it.

Even the most pricey nursery schools, have to take under consideration the costs of salaries and administration in fear of lowering the quality of the nursery school.

As for studies in Canada, to which there is only a few longitude studies available, the benefits of early childhood education shows positive for the short term, and not the long term futures of children. Early childhood education is not a silver bullet, and it should not be advertised by the public educators as a silver bullet. In fact, in the comment sections of newspapers, there is a lot of parents stating that is would have been a lot less expensive to expand the daycare seats and nursery schools, and have the same outcomes.

pobod

Critique of Perry study is long as usual but there is nothing in there. I recommend people read it above and find any problems. It is still the gold standard in pre-school studies.

The effects are life-long and profound.

Timely article - ” Toronto screenwriter Trevor Finn caused a heated debate last month when he wrote in the Globe and Mail that he and his wife earned a combined six-figure income and couldn’t afford both the $1,600 a month in daycare and their small downtown condo.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/million-dollar-babies-191606252.html

As for the Ontario’s wrapped around services for early childhood education and daycare that is anchored by the public education system - how will the public education system keep the daycare costs down for parents, while ensuring that daycare quality is maintained against the ‘million dollar’ babies and the stratospheric costs in maintaining shelter, transportation and living expenses.

The funding system of the education system is not sustainable, and more so when taxpayers can ill afford tax increases against the rising costs of basic living expenses.

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions related to my recent letter to the editor about full-day kindergarten. First, let’s be clear: I did not make any predictions about future test results. I shared some findings from EQAO research called “Starting Early: Teaching, Learning and Assessment—Linking Early-Childhood Development with Academic Outcomes”, which shows that students whose language and cognitive development is “on track” in senior kindergarten are considerably more likely to meet the provincial standard in reading, writing and math (a bulletin on this research is available at http://www.eqao.com/Research/pdf/E/EDI10_Btn_E.pdf). I also shared some research based on EQAO’s most recent cohort tracking, which shows that there is a clear relationship between early achievement and achievement in high school (highlights are available at http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/13/Elementary_Highlights_2013_en.pdf). My hope that full-day kindergarten will help students, particularly those in poverty, to demonstrate early and sustained achievement should not be confused with a prediction.

I believe that everyone engaged in this conversation has a shared goal: setting Ontario students on the path to a successful future. It’s a complicated challenge; one for which honest and transparent information about how students are achieving in core areas is vital. I am committed to ensuring that EQAO continues to provide impartial, objective information from Ontario’s province-wide tests and to participate in the conversation about student achievement in Ontario. EQAO takes its independence as an arm’s-length agency very seriously.

While the focus here really shouldn’t be on me, those who are interested in my background can read my biography at http://www.eqao.com/AboutEQAO/Biography.aspx?Lang=E&bioID=BR And y.es, I do have three children, as well as degrees in Mathematics, Education and Theology, all from Ontario universities.

Thanks for your comments Bruce. It’s great to have you join in the conversation!

We agree that early intervention is essential.  However, in Ontario it is still too early to tell what the far-reaching effects will be for all-day K. Other jurisdictions that have tried this have had promising outcomes in the first few years, but mixed results for the long-term.

SQE has always promoted researched-based, proven-effective instruction as crucial for achievement success—especially for low income at-risk student populations.  We have come to the conclusion that using systematic, explicit methods of direct instruction yield greater long-term achievement benefits. 

The disappointing math test results should be setting off alarm bells in Ontario.  Provinces like Manitoba have made changes to the curriculum to reflect effective teaching of fundamental skills.

It was always my understanding that the EQAO, while encouraging best practices, was not going to tell schools or teachers how to teach.  I spent nearly seven years on the board of EQAO and that was always pretty clear.  Perhaps that will change as more relevant research is carried out.  (Ontario always seems to need to re-invent the wheel.)

We certainly agree that the focus should ALWAYS be on the students and their success.

PS Bruce, tried to return your call, but keep getting your EA’s voice mail.