I agree wholeheartedly with your post.Interestingly-direct instruction in research based methods has a far greater beneficial effect in these kinds of classrooms than discovery learning.

In the Labrador School Board early grades where my program is taught to prevent reading problems by training all SK-3 teachers to become reading experts they have seen an 80% whole classroom improvement in literacy.

They should be doing exactly the opposite and make every effort to reduce failure day one!

I agree too, that the practice of mainstreaming, have cause other problems for students who do not high proficiency levels in the 3 Rs, in all or some aspect of each. The social, emotional, and attitudes are impacted on all students. Students who have lower proficiency levels in the 3 Rs, are seen differently from more accomplished students. They are seen as not having academic strengths, and thus they are described in terms of behaviour traits that are seen as strengths, and improvement in the academics are dependent on improving the behaviour traits.

I have had more than my fair share of my child being described academically using behaviour traits. Her report cards can attest to it, speaking of her in glowing terms behaviour wise, but rarely on her academic strengths. Behaviour may indeed impact the child’s ability to learn, but it never will teach the child to read proficiently.

Joanne, thanks for the information on the Labrador board, especially on teachers becoming reading experts, and the 80 % improvement. Boards in NL, are not candid or open, about the successes of using different methods, that are not the norm. More ammo to use, the present methods taught are not as effective as DI and having primary and elementary teachers becoming reading specialists.

“The schools that most readily adopt the concept of inclusion are generally those that already embrace instructional practices which are designed to provide challenging learning environments to children with very diverse learning characteristics. Such practices include heterogeneous grouping, peer tutoring, multi-age classes, middle school structures, “no-cut” athletic policies, cooperative learning, and development of school media centers which stimulate students’ electronic access to extensive databases for their own research.” (Rogers, 1993, p.4)
“If teachers design a rich set of activities around a topic, they shouldn’t have trouble selecting which are appropriate for different learners, whether they’re gifted, ESL, or have cerebral palsy…Inclusive instruction is hands-on, participatory, active, and cooperative…Innovations such as whole language, authentic assessment, and critical thinking are part and parcel of inclusion.” (Sapon-Shevin as quoted in Willis, 1994)”

The sad part, no child in a classroom becomes proficient in all academic skills, which in the end limits the number of doors after graduation at the end of high school.

“I have had more than my fair share of my child being described academically using behaviour traits. Her report cards can attest to it, speaking of her in glowing terms behaviour wise, but rarely on her academic strengths. Behaviour may indeed impact the child’s ability to learn, but it never will teach the child to read proficiently.``

You may be interested to know Nancy that the former Education Minister Gerard Kennedy commissioned a study on Special Education, which among other interesting points highlighted the high number of children identified a behavioural.

There are many issues raised in this study that never saw the light of day….there`s a reason why.

I haven`t checked that it`s still linked on the MOE site but I do have a hard-copy here somewhere that likely has link info. on it.

Nancy, Chuck

The report you’re thinking of was the Review of Growth Claims. I’ve tried linking here but it’s not working for me.

I will try another route, but if any one else has the link perhaps they can try posting it here. In the meantime a good friend reminded me of this beauty contained within the report.

“One common internal factor cited in different ways by several boards was the concept of
“created need.”  In these examples, students demonstrated serious behavioural or other
issues because of deficiencies in the school system in areas such as English-as-a-Second
Language (ESL) or lack of initial response to mild disabilities, which then became worse.

See page 6.”

Chuck, and others, parents with children who have learning problems, regarding the education component, are well aware that a lot of kids are being identified and labeled under behavioural. By high school, they moved into the mild to moderate cognitive disorder.  At the moment , according to the NL stats, there is only one child in the whole high school, that is under the mild to moderate LD grouping. There is no children under the severe LD. The bulk of children are now under mild to moderate cognitive disorder. When I asked the school, whether that lone LD child, is my child. The principal replied telling me, that the stats are incorrect and don’t pay attention to them. You, can only imagine how that conversation ended.

There has been many studies conducted by school boards, ministries regarding SE and services, that have never saw the light. But these studies will confirm the studies of the researchers in SE topics, and where it shows the most, is the LD studies. It shows how LD is perceived through a set of behaviour measures, rather than the learning problem. When a child with a learning problem, behaves properly, the behaviour is measured in terms of listening, focus, sit up straight, with feet on the floor, and so forth, as the reasons why they are not successful in their work.

If one take a look at the IEP process, where the stated strengths and weaknesses . Under weaknesses is the education component, that would hinder academic success. But under the strengths, is a list of non-academic traits. In my last conversation, three years ago on this matter, at a IEP meeting, I expressed and it was directed at the board staff, that they would not know any of my child’s academic strengths, even if they tripped over them. Being polite, is not an academic strength, but a reflection on my parenting skills, and neither is closing the door, as was expressed by a teacher two years ago. Everyone went quiet for at least one moment, and I was certainly glad that I did the charts showing little improvement from her psycho-educational assessments, yet massive improvement in grades, with little support or accommodation on the school’s part. As the silence grew, the lead person look at the charts, shuffled through them, and than said, you are absolutely right, I do not know her academic strengths, and lets do something about it right now.

Looking back, the only thing I won, was that my child became the exception and the right to be taught DI, when it is needed, in the classroom. The teachers in the room were given permission to do so, without anyone towering over them, you can’t do that. But the political games are still at play, where my child’s file is at the board level, and the teachers have no access to the file, that would be pertinent to the learning needs of my child. It is a good thing, that teachers hang around my area for years, because the teachers at the high school went the extra mile, to talk my child’s former teachers, all the way to grade 1. My child represents a threat to current teaching practice, as do the children who go to the school down the street, who are learning how to read for the first time at the age of 9 or higher. In the process, teachers are learning that perhaps certain methods are far more superior than the current methods that are practice.

A note about EQAO standards, mainly for John L, may be interesting for others.

Doug was trying to say that level 2 is good and acceptable.
Doug was innacurate.

Well, as you can see on the EQAO site ONLY the levels 3 and 4 are considered at or above Provincial Standard.
-see the legend of the y axis in the graph on this english home page.
http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E

Samples and scoring guides
http://www.eqao.com/Educators/Elementary/036/BookletsandGuides.aspx?Lang=E&gr=036&yr=09

Ask yourself
- Would you be happy with your child at level 2 after 3 years of school, 5 days a week,  6 hours a day ?
(Compare for example with what you would expect from hockey training after 3 years, 3 times a week, 2 hours at a time.)

- Do you think that students at level 1 and level 2 will be able to cope with grade 4 curriculum?
How are they going to catch up?

- As a taxpayer with 40% of student at level 1 and 2 after 3 years of school at a price tag of about 10,000 year/student do you feel you get your money’s worth out of taxes that you pay?

NOTE1: A percentage of student - about 10% any year do not take the test., so in reality the percentage of students that do not achieve the standard may be more than 40%

NOTE2: The tests seem slightly easier in the latest years.

NOTE3: The results reflect not just what a student has learned in school but fairly widespread teaching by the parent and tutoring outside the school.
What would the results look like if you take away the effects of this outside teaching?

Regading “Mainstreaming is in the interest of disabled students.”

If someone reads Engelmann or just common sense would tell you that the more a student is outside the norm the more specialized help he would need to catch up.

Help that a teacher would have neither time nor expertise to offer in a regular mainstreamed class.

Let’s just say for argument’s sake that mainstreaming is helping disabled students…

Now I am going to go out on a limb and ask: how about the other students?
Does mainstreaming affect them? How? For the better?
It is one thing to integrate at recess time it is a different thing to integrate during regular class time if disabled students disrupt the class as it is quite often the case.
How fair is it to to do bad for 18 or 19 students for the good of one?

If we are to be a fair society ( let aside an effective one at using our resources) any potential good for the disabled students should be fairly balanced against the potential bad for all the other students.

fromEurope

  Thanks!  I recall seeing someone else note that a score of 2 isn’t really something we should be particularly impressed by.  You’ve cleared up that.

I was a little surprised a professional educator so misread the results and what they meant.

Mainstreaming-my post was about teaching all children to read with research based instruction led by teacher-from day 1-we greatly reduce the line up for special education placement and identification that way.I was simply stating we needed to do very very well in the early grades to create successful students.
I used to train teachers how to remediate but prevention is much more humane-
Now if you are in grade 6 and you cannot read and spell we remediate but the cost to the child and his parents in angst and self esteem and the costs of doing 1-1 for the school board exorbitant…we live in an age where we know enough to teach 95% of the class to read and spell.

Europe, disruptive students from what I have observed, that they are removed from the classroom. The ones with severe problems are not normally part of the regular classroom, except in classes such as art/music. So, we go with your question that mainstreaming is helping disabled students?  From what I have seen, it disrupts the flow of teaching from the teacher to the students. It removes the teacher from his intended and over-all goals, to meeting the needs of the disabled students. There is completing interests, where disruptive disabled students are look after almost immediately, because it disrupts all students attention, and the needs of the disabled learner, that is the education component, may always be over-looked in favour of completing the over-all goals of the lesson for all of the children.

I just did some reading on this subject, while searching for something entirely different, the term created needs, posted by notasheep.

“One common internal factor cited in different ways by several boards was the concept of
“created need.”  In these examples, students demonstrated serious behavioral or other
issues because of deficiencies in the school system in areas such as English-as-a-Second
Language (ESL) or lack of initial response to mild disabilities, which then became worse. “

Quite the twisting and turning of the head, trying to figure it out, if created need is being used to blame the student, or a need was created, based on the non-response from the educator. So I went searching, and read many different types of article related to needs. The origin of the term may go back to Freud, but I was not about to go there. I have only found one educator, who has written quite a few books, named “The organization and planning of adult education By Theodore J. Kowalski.”

The link is below, from a book excerpt, and created needs can be found at the bottom of page 124. There is other needs terms as well. Quite the science, where need terms are found throughout all of the social sciences, but created needs seem to be coined specifically for education purposes, in the field of adult education. Once you read that term. it is the educator arranging on purpose to created needs, to arouse action on the part of the learner. Quite the confusion, but I can tell you it is par for the course when it comes to special education in the public education system.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=V9tpc2BOo_8C&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Theodore+J.+Kowalski+and+created+needs&source=bl&ots=eeW8f_A-AP&sig=oTgjyslMWmW11BNVsG-8hfQGadA&hl=en&ei=_EvfS9LYLsH98AaM9biYBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f;=false

It is common from what I have observed, that they will convince parents that a 2 is acceptable, since they considered it as a pass, a D, but in their eyes a pass.

Europe is wrong. Level 2 can read.

Only levels 3 and 4 are at or above the provincial average. Well of course, no matter how well students do, rougly half will always be below average. That is what an average almost means (actually it is a mean) but pretty close.

Level 2 kids are not illiterate. THEY CAN READ and as the years go by they will read better and better. Did I mention the fact that Canada’s 15 year olds read better than any nation on Earth except Finland? How do you accomplish that unless your system is very good.

If your child is not doing well, that is your child. That does not mean that the rest of the system is not doing well. The vast majority of students who do not read well are poor and it is because of their poverty that they do not do well. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of education experts.

Are teachers important? Yes they are and everybody knows that.

The bell curve in reading levels, can no longer be looking like a bell. More like a lopped-sided bell shape.
As for this comment,” Level 2 kids are not illiterate. THEY CAN READ and as the years go by they will read better and better”

When will that be Doug, when they are paying for the remedial help on their own dime?  It is bad the remedial help for struggling readers suck big time, designed to promote the idea that they are not smart enough to learn how to read. But than again why would you help them, when you use these children as your rallying cry for more money, more teachers, and what would not tug at the holders of the purse strings, than a brunch of children who have low reading abilities?  Believe, the holders of the purse strings are slowly waking up, before the whole public education is destroy by the hands who are there to educate our children.

By the time they are 15 they will be part of the second best reading country on Earth Nancy.

That is because the tests are already rigged not to test for current reading levels, but anywhere between 1.5 to 2 years earlier. The majority of poor readers, are mostly 2 years behind in grade level. Why do you think the test is taking at the age of 15 at the very most?  It has been shown, that children after the age of 15, will no longer be able to keep up, and remain in and about at the grade 8 reading level. It is why they don’t bother to test after grade 10, because what is provided at the high school level, for reading remediation will not do it. And the second part that it is rigged, is that the test is at a level where even the most low readers, will make it a magic 3, just barely but they will make it. But in your world, a level 2 is still a D, and in your books, the person at level 2 has just the same reading skills , and can always be used in the pleasant courses of applied or even basic, where the learning day consists of busy work, with no real courses that actually will improve their low reading, writing and numeracy skills, that might just come in handy in the real world.

Age 15 is chosen simply because it is barely under the final age of compulsory schooling. After age 15, the scores are too influenced by the different drop-out rtes of the different countries. Even if you are correct Nancy, we still beat the heck out of every nation on the Earth except Finland and they are barely ahead.

Therefore we are close to having the best reading program on Earth. Go Canada.

Glad you reminded me, on another observation regarding the stats. I often wonder, the difference between the grade 3/6 and the grade 9 CRTs, or in the case of the literacy test in grade 10, why there is such a remarkable improvement in level 1 and 2, where the percentage of students dropped to single digit numbers or in the low teens,  by grade 9. I could only assume, but now I have confirmation as to why there is a remarkable drop in level 1 and 2. The literacy test in Ontario may be the exception to the rule at the present time, but I will stand by the CRTs in the other provinces. I could only assume, that A) teachers were teaching to the CRT and B) the most likely one, they made the CRT less demanding, so more would be able to pass it. The real reason, could be the children that are identified, are no longer required to take the CRT, based on low grades. The only exception are students who have been identified but either have average to high grades, will have to take the test. Now with these students, they will be instructing the children how to answer the questions, questions that often are open-ended responses that are hard to do, compounded by their weak reading and writing skills. Plus they will have the use of the dictionary, plus calculators, and be more or less fully accommodated. How about that, remove the kids that will dragged down the results, and the kids that have previously failed prior CRTs, give them a fighting chance, based on their strengths, accommodate them, and the chances are even they will make the magic 3. Oh yes, spend the last 30 days teaching to the CRT in language arts and math for the whole class.

Why do that, when they could have made concrete changes in grade 4, with effective instruction in reading, writing, and numeracy, where there would be no need to do this at grade 9. Instead they made the CRTs even tougher for the weaker students to pass.

As a true politician, Mr.Doug misquotes words again ...

Look at all my posts .. I’ve always said 40% of the student do not know how to read, write, do basic math well.

Are level 2 students ready for grade 4?

Look at the math test. What’s required is at a low level to start with.
For someone’s work to be graded at level 2, a student needs to do litte better than random guessing.

The way these tests are marked leave quite a bit of room for interpretation.
If when marking somebody interprets any scribble as being an attempt to a solution, one can grade a good 20% higher and still be within the guidelines.

With roughly 10% of the students not writing these tests, with room for interpretation when marking them I would argue that very likely in reality

1 student out of every 2 is not up to standard.

You are missing the point Europe, Level 2 kids can read and will keep getting better until, by age 15 they will be part of the data of the second best nation of readers on Earth. That is what matters.

You show your ignorance with your response-like difficulties with learning to read go away by themselves-and dissipate into thin air and get better magically by the time they are 15-more like they dumb down the test.
Over 40% of students in this country suffer with marginal literacy…I don`t care what number you put on it.Authentic literacy which enables them to read and understand is not being delivered by your teachers because of 2 things.A-the Universities don`t train them.
B-The curriculum is flawed K-3-

Yours is the ignorance that is showing. No it is not magic. The students actually go to school between age 8 and age 15 and their reading gets better and better until we are second in the world and considered a model nation by many for the excellent results achieved by our 15 year olds. The 40% reading figure is totally bogus. I spent many years in the adult litercy movement. Don’t try to BS me.

If youe are saying PISA is dumbed down go ahead but it is set by international experts, something that you are clearly not.

Anybody who cannot read in this country was a) educated somewhere else, or b) poor or c) has personal learning difficulties.

All the evidence is on my side, please go do some research.

Doug, it is people like you, claiming to be skilled in reading, are the same people putting out misconceptions over the reading processes, if not deliberate wrong information, on the problems within low reading literacy.

I would expect from a professional, to deliver facts, and not the lies, you love to spread, but never ever back up with the research to support the lies. But as a parent, if I lived in Toronto, I would make it my business, to do something about the obvious misconceptions and lies about the reading process, especially the part of their reading that gets better and better.

Implying that they become good readers, when that is not the case at all. All of them are slow readers, with various problems from decoding, to poor reading strategies, to fluency, which all impacts comprehension. Without the proper targeted instruction, these kids remain with low literacy skills, and depending on the problems, some will remain the same, with little improvement if at all, but for the most, their reading skills slide down to a lower level, and than remain steady. Addressing literacy problems as teenagers, and in the adult population is extremely difficult, compared to the relative ease addressing reading problems between the ages of 6 to 12. The solutions that are provided, at the high school level are not effective, and it becomes a hit and miss strategy, where only a few become good readers, but the majority remain slow readers, What should take a minute or two to read, takes them 5 minutes or more to fully understand. The more problems a reader has, it will impact their comprehension and full understanding of the article. For many, the use of rereading the article, often 3 or 4 times, becomes the normal routine. There writing is also affected on a negative basis, dependent upon the reading problems the individual has.

For you to claim, educated somewhere else, being poor or have learning difficulties, are truly a reflection on you Doug, and how individuals like yourself, spread erroneous information, sometimes false facts, based purely on your personal experiences and observations. and if there is a demand for evidence, you cherry-picked the evidence that fits well with your insertions. You would not dare make false claims to the reading experts, but you do with people who you perceived are not professionals.

It is in this light, that parents, the teachers and the children must face each and every day. Listening to the false lies of the Doug’s of the world, who are quite willing to spread them, but never willing to debate the issues in a full public forum. against the experts who would say the opposite. And with parents, they can be easily put back in their corner, by telling them they do not know what they are talking about, and if they persist, they will tell the parent unless they have a professional background, they have no right to express their opinion. Many of a parent have heard this, and as a result, have become strong advocates for their children. We know BS when we see it, because we take the time to educate ourselves with all the facts, and not cherry-picked them to suit our reality.

A union person, is what our Doug is, not an educator which would be at the bottom of his list. It is these lies, that support and makes the union in a powerful entity, that has created this crisis in reading. For the parents who are reading this, especially the ones in Ontario. If one wants to do something constructive, and empowering, I have a method that is very effective. It is time to write to the president of the teachers’ unions, with a two page letter telling them your difficulties in obtaining an education for your child. As evidence, it is the hard copies of your children’s tests, that will show the writing difficulties. For some, it will be showing what an A stands for, with incorrect grammar and spelling mistakes. For others, it is in the areas of math. For the people who have left the public education system, they should write too, to express the reasons why they left, and give examples of tests while at the public school, and give examples of the amazing improvements that occurred in the private system.

The public education system is the way it is today, because we have allowed it to be. The way the system is set up, it is extremely difficult to work at the bottom of the system to make effective changes for your children. When going to the top, it is extremely difficult for the president of the teachers’ union to ignore a parent’s letter, with such damning evidence. More so when he or she is dealing with a few thousand sitting on his desk, parents coming from various backgrounds, all wanting the same time, I want my child to become good readers and writers. More powerful, when the parents are not perceived as a collective group, but rather from a individual’s perspective, with no perceived group behind them. Do not think it is a waste of time, the president of the teachers’ union will response. Do not think it will cause you more problems at the local school, because either they will thank you for doing so, or remain quiet, and secretly agree with you. Teachers in the classroom, know very well what the problems are, but they do have the union to contend with, and going against them, would be risking their job in some areas. But the union can’t touch parents in the same way. They have been getting away with things, by taking advantage of the various levels of knowledge that parents process, and it is time to put the various levels of knowledge to work for effective change in the public education. And please, help parents who you know that may not have the writing skills to produce an effective letter. It is here, their stories where outright discrimination occurs, and where the school saw it as having the best intentions, or working on the best interests of the child. It is here, where the inequities are shown. The same inequities that the teachers’ union pretend to care about, but they don’t. They do not want to eliminate the inequities that causes discrimination and biases, because that would work against their best interests.

So silent readers, the parents, please start writing. I would love to see the faces of the Dougs of the world, when there is thousands of letters sitting at the .desks of the presidents of the teachers’ unions in large provinces like Ontario. Than the next stage can begin, by writing to the premiers of the provinces. The true picture will come out, that parents are not happy campers with the public education system, and hopefully not in any part of it.

Nancy, I have dealt with the top curriculum people from the ministry, from the boards from the teachers’ colleges and from OISE/UT. They have read all the studies, evaluated your positions and all others and come to the conclusion as a massive consensus that you are just plain wrong on all of the issues, period. You need to accept that there is a professional consensus that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Deal with it.

Where does it state publicly to what you attest to Doug???? Where is it written???? Done in a private meeting, is not public. Where in any of papers written by the so-called experts that we are all wrong on all issues????  And what about names, and produced them, that they claim we are wrong about the issues.

Until, you come up with the evidence, I will take the time to write over the summer time,  to the Ontario’s top curriculum people from the ministry, boards, teachers’ colleges and from the OISE/UT, to write about your claims, and asked them if they are in the same line of thinking as you say they are. I would not be surprised to received telephone calls, instead of a letter, to expressed the exact opposite of what you claim. And do not dismiss me lightly, I do carry out what I have laid out to you, and it will be done without disclosing names, and other information that will lead to disclosure. More than likely, they will dismiss your claims, and the conversation will be more on what what is wrong with the system, and what improvements can happen, given the reality of the highly politicized environment of education, where effective policies are a rare beast.

OISE-Research division-how should children be taught to read and spell-explicit systematic synthetic phonics-
You should tell the teacher prep arm-we did-they won`t listen-the building is divided-then tell the Ministry of Education-Oh them-that is just politics….

Doug ask the research department at OISE how reading should be taught to get 90% success…

But Nancy, Jo-ann and all….it’s not about students for Doug, it’s all about him. He’s in it for himself, just like Mr. Ignatieff. Two peas in a pod those two.

Chalk it up to his effort to try and stay relevant when the system’s changing before his very eyes.

Why don’t you chat up someone who believes you Doug and take your show on the road? Or have you already tried?

I agree not a sheep-there is a representation here of a union bureaucrat -pretty scary stuff.

It is both frightening and disturbing that he meets with Ministers-his words-and that he influences.

Hopefully,we will find a way to influence further than he-after all the proof is in the pudding.

OISE = Balanced literacy.

That is the teaching staff and profs-not the Resarch Arm-besides when you know how to teach Reading you begin with systematic synthetic phonics-teach students to segments phonemes orally and then show them the picture the sounds make-the balanced literacy word is a public relations word for parents.
Right now the school boards are told to teach in a way where they skip the process-would you want to drive to Buffalo without a map or play Mozart without knowledge of notes or scales?
Reading instruction that is correct begins with explicit systematic synthetic phonics so we can get to meaning-otherwise we are stuck with fuzzy reading and tons of guessing AND boys that fail.
MRI imaging shows only light up on the left side when they read whereas girls light up on both sides of the brain which may help us understand that for boys the process is non negotiable-it`s non negotiable for everyone anyway-only 5 % come to class as language proteges

Can someone explain to Nancy what I mean by Hegemony or dominance. She keeps looking for “the place it is written down”. What is the reading program of 95% of the boards, what do 90% of the education profs preach, what direction does the ministry or others follow, what do school boards advocate and enforce, what to almost all official reading organization advocate and promote?

This is what you need to deal with Nancy. Your POV and that of SEQ in general has been carefully examined by the experts and found wanting.

All the above are misdirected-they need what SQE brings them-we will succeed-sans you.
The Ministry needs to care about children.
The teachers need to be trained in the cutting edge research instruction.

Give it up!

I know, everybody is crazy except a tiny group who has the truth. I guess you realize how that sounds.

hegemony - a word that really has nothing to do with the proper instruction for a child’s education. but lots to do with dominance of one social group over another.

“The dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others
“the hegemony of a single member state is not incompatible with a genuine confederation”; “to say they have priority is not to say they have complete hegemony”; “the consolidation of the United States’ hegemony over a new international economic system”

And the adjective, hegemonic means:
“Of or pertaining to hegemony
“It’s easy to see how any of those issues could become a tipping point leading to these hegemonic decline scenarios”

Why is it, that the Dougs of the world, hide in behind words, but never providing irrefutable evidence to prove that they are right, but still insist that they have the rightful authority on all things in education?

I learned a new word today, and hegemony has quite the history. Here is a link, that will provide the history, if anyone so desires to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Worth repeating, “The next time you hear an education leader justifying his or her stance on the basis that it’s good for kids, be skeptical. He or she may be having an ostensible moment!.”

Another reason, to accept the words of an education leader, without demanding the proof that their stance is correct.

Nancy the number of education experts who agree with me would need the AC Centre to hold. The experts who agree with you could be contained in a phone booth.

Do you ever for one minute wonder why?

Present day example. Where my child presented a very logical, reasoned demand piece, why governments lie to their citizens. She received full marks for her answer, and increased her written LA tests, from a 62 % to a 68 %. Steady increases, based on my instruction at home, to improve her critical thinking skills, despite her weaknesses in writing. Balanced literacy, does not cut it. It provides little in substance to developed the crucial thinking skills, to move beyond the words on the page, and to engage in critical thinking. I bet the teacher when he sees me, will asked me what I am doing at home, because it is not coming from the curriculum.

By presenting the argument of the number of experts who agree with me would need the AC centre to hold them all, is not an accepted response, and, nor would I accept that reason from my own child, because everyone is doing it.

Yes, it is time we upgrade the discussions, where critical thinking is part of the process, along with logical and reasoned evidence to support one’s stance.

I’d imagine most “education experts” got to be “experts” by working their way up through the status quo; getting along by going along.

Very few major changes in how things are done are driven by those who are heavily invested in perpetuating the norm; why would they want to rock the boat that’s served them so well?

Leaders in any field don’t tend to be part of the flock.

So now that we have established that most experts do not agree with a traditional conservative approach, now the experts are not really experts.

John, do you ever actually consider that, with so much educational knowledge ranged against you that you are just wrong?

There is a few education experts that I had to deal with. The kind with the PHD behind their name, the kind that makes judgments based on their own set of knowledge, values, and imposes their pronouncements unto the children, who do not fit the norm. Ask the experts, how many children did their fail due to their short-sighted pronouncements? Asked the experts, how many policy changes have been made, based on their expertise that failed to produced the intended goals?  Than asked the other experts, who have helped a great deal of children, that the other experts said they cannot learn academically? 

There is quite a few experts, that are still eating humble pie, concerning children who were not considered academic material, The ones that were labeled, low expectations, a signal to a teacher, that they did not have to try and help the child to learn. According to the experts the child was poor academic material, not worthy of any one’s expertise.

On the Mississauga School Board site:
“People who hold power, i.e., those from dominant groups, learn that they represent the “norm”. These individuals then form assumptions about the world and about the centrality of their vantage point, because they have the power to construct and control whole “bodies of knowledge”. Those in the dominant group learn positive messages about themselves, although they often do not realize it. When this happens, they learn to internalize their own dominance, under the guise of normality. Internalized dominance is marked by its invisibility to those who have it. Those with power assume that everyone shares their reality and operate as if their perspective were universal. As a matter of fact, everyone – whether dominant group members or not – learns and absorbs positive messages about dominant group people (Sawyer, 19 , p.1).

On the flip side of dominance stands “subordination” or “oppression”. On this side, mirroring the positive messages we all learn about those in the dominant group, our society teaches us (everyone) negative messages about those without power – people in “target groups”. “We all hear, from childhood on, these negative messages and stereotypes about target groups; we cannot help but absorb them, even though we may also learn intellectually that they are not true. Not surprisingly, if we are in a target or oppressed group, we soak in negative messages about ourselves” (Sawyer, p.1).”

The so-called experts, still insist and demand that we must share their reality, and absorb their positive messages. Until the experts in the public education systems, addresses their failures, the other experts on the other side, will continue to impress to the general public, to impart knowledge, that points out the inconsistencies that the experts in the public education system, live in their own reality, far removed from the real reality of life, and the nature of people.

http://www.gobeyondwords.org/The_Future_We_Want.html

All I am saying Nancy, is that the vast majority of education experts do not agree with you. As John and you now acknowledge, this is true but this huge crowd of experts are wrong according to you and John because they do not agree with you.

You just make your argument look weak.

It has nothing to do whether I or John disagrees. All I have ceded, that the unions, the various parts of the public education, holds the position of dominance over the parents and their children, in the direction of public education. I have ceded that parents and their children hold little sway in the current public education system. The hegemony of the public education system, ensures that the oppressed (parents and children) walk to the same drum beat to whatever the public education is advocating for. Much like the hegemony state of Nazi Germany, where many did not dare to speak against the Nazi Regime, or unpleasant things happen to you. But whether we talk about the Nazi State, or the public education system, they still process the same nature, and that nature is a hegemonic one. The dominate group seeks to control all aspects, and to become the final say-so in all things. It is their very nature.

All I have pointed out, in not so many words, that you, Doug represents the need to ” internalize their own dominance, under the guise of normality. Internalized dominance is marked by its invisibility to those who have it. Those with power assume that everyone shares their reality and operate as if their perspective were universal. As a matter of fact, everyone – whether dominant group members or not – learns and absorbs positive messages about dominant group people (Sawyer, 19 , p.1).” It is why you are often surprise that not all are accepting and willing to take the so-called positive messages as truth. Just like some German people were not willing either to take Nazi truth as the new reality.

When a dominate group seeks to control over others, there will always be some, who will resist, because they know it is not the true reality. Some of the greatest inventions, were created by people, who were told they were completely wrong. The so-called experts told them they were out to lunch. Einstein and Thomas Edison are just two. A more recent one, would be Bill Gates. And even today, Bill Gates is still regarded as a nut bar in some circles, trying to change foreign aid and how it is delivered to the intended people. His idea is not so novel, but his attempts to ensure most if not all aid reaches the intended people, without paying all the bribes along the way.

I only insist that you do not imposed your edicts on me, without providing the proof to support your edicts. You feel no need to justify your statements, because as you stated earlier, your justification is being in the dominate group. If so, than why has anyone from the dominate group, come and support you, in your efforts?

Doretta you can comment on Nancy’s Hitler references. I would expect the post to be removed.

OK, I have taken out the offending sentence. Honestly, children, surely you can debate the issues on their own merits, without resorting to name calling. It does not become you.