As mentioned in the article, SES differences are far more profound than gender differences.

“All the fuss over gender is misplaced, according to Wayne Martino, a professor of education at the University of Western Ontario. Socioeconomic status is more closely linked to academic achievement than gender, and the boys issue is distracting education from bigger problems.

“I don’t discount the issue that there are issues for boys, but I don’t think it’s helpful to think as boys as a homogeneous group,” he said

Yeah let us forget about the biological differences between genders, as well as the brain differences.
Even in Scotland, the reading scores are slipping, due mainly to the reading instruction. Until the so-called educrats start to recognized the differences between boys and girls,the reading scores will continued to dip or remain flat for years to come. Until than, they should start to read the comments on the education articles, where parents already know it is the 3 Rs and not the SES differences, that would really make achievement rise.  One mother commented, she took her son to a tutor, for math, mostly boys, and a few girls.

If one is not a good reader, than one will not be a good writer.

I read Mr. Martino’s comments in the Globe article as well.  What did he say?  Just kidding.  I’m only OK as far as understanding edubabble, but in my defence he was vague.  Eg., what are the bigger problems in education that he alluded to?  And to beware of thinking of ‘boys as a homogeneous group’.  What the heck?  Maybe he was just trying to point out that nowadays all types of boys aren’t doing as well as girls in science. 
He’d be great fun to have a debate with…

http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/krashen.html

They will never listen-the conductors just keep going-

Here`s Krashen who lead a whole state into the abyss-

The link that Jo-Anne has provided - one Canadian top level educrat is mentioned. Really all about lining their pockets, rather than the best interests of students.

“Within a short time, Krashen, a UCLA-trained professor, was speaking to school groups and offering proposals on exactly how to teach “bilingual” education. Krashen based many of his ideas on the theories of Professor Jim Cummins of the University of Toronto. Cummins saw the dominant English language in Canada as a repressive tool used to blot out smaller cultures, such as the French Canadian. In the United States, the pair found a ready audience for their beliefs among the often politically liberal ranks of teachers working in urban schools with immigrant children. “

Repressive?  All I can say is BS. What is repressive, and keeps students back is the kind of education policies based on non-science that lines the pockets of the educrats at the expense of the students.

”

When a student is from another language and culture, say for instance Spanish speaking Mexican Americans, the research shows that rather than an abrupt switch to English only, it is better to phase in English while you continue to learn the core curriculum in Spanish 20% next year 30% next year 50% then 75% and stop there so the student retains their language and becomes truly bilingual. These students stay in school longer, and achieve more.

The culturally insensitive “melting pot” types don’t support this direction. This led to a major increase in dropouts.

In Europe, it is not done. Walk into any European country, first the students learn the language, before being transferred to the regular class. The culturally insensitive???  Yeah, the insensitively of ignoring the real needs of students, and their future, no matter what there first language is.

By the way Doug, when I was young, 4 to 6 months spent learning the English language, in a separate classroom, and eventual transfer to a regular classroom. Not a problem back than, and back in the day when over 85 % of the children, had English as their second language. Also back in the days, when the churches had language class on Saturday mornings to retained their first language.

If you read Joanne’s link, it is thought by the so-called experts, that second language students, will pick up the English language through the culture of the country, or for that matter any language, without having the need of teaching the formalities and construct of the language. What has been shown, students will pick up the informal language and basic communication, but will never become proficient in the second language, unless the students are immerse in the second language from the get go, with formal lessons, as well as informal ways such as getting to know the culture, radio, television and internet.

“The idea that one should withhold English from a child so that he can gain his skills first in the language of his parents, and that this will translate into becoming literate more quickly in English, is simply not how it works,” Rossell asserts. “You do not teach someone five years of skateboarding when you want them to learn to surf, even if skateboarding helps a little with things like balance and fitness. But that is what California is doing with Mexican-American children. When I tell researchers in Europe that in America we are teaching children Spanish first to move them into English later, they act like I’m joking.”

Like Spanish and other romance languages, get rid of the whole language instruction, and the students will sooner be proficient in English by immersing the students in the English language, rather than the method used in California, that takes 5 to 6 years to discovered the kids cannot read at grade level, a grade six level english text.

Culturally insensitive???  BS. Look after the education interests of the students first, that rises above all the other concerns, including culture. No doubt, students used that excuse, when they get into trouble, because someone stared at them, resulting them to take actions that implies some kind of discrimination. No doubt, a lot of school policies and practices are formed to indicate the so-called sensitively to cultural and language, but than are used to protect the educators from law suits, and allows the intended participants to work the policies and practices to their own best interests, and to their advantage.

Playing homage to cultural practices inside a school, leads to many inequities and sometimes to dire results, like death. Perhaps, it is about time schools start paying attention to the national culture, and not the individual cultures of many. Perhaps the canal deaths would not have happened, if the school and children services, stopped playing the cultural card of not offending, and act according to their common sense and knowledge at hand, for the best interests of the children.  Two set of rules, because if it was a typical 5th generation Canadian students, the students would be alive today.

Positive discrimination is one of the cursed practices inside our schools, and other public institutions that allows the inequalities to germinate and flow into the wider society into negative outcomes.

Doug,I realize you represent the dark side:)however,your attempts to trivialize very serious decisions in education that affect hundreds of thousands of children is taken offensively by me.
The answers to big problems can`t be “shoot from the hip” flippant statements but rather,how can we do better for the children and teachers caught in these serious across the country decisions-that fail them?I have learned that teachers care about their effectiveness,it`s the fuel for getting up to the job every day,what they need are administrators and researchers that guide them with integrity.

Medicine with all it`s flaws is sooo much better,they have processes for everything and they don`t run by the seat of opinion.

“Medicine with all it`s flaws is sooo much better,they have processes for everything and they don`t run by the seat of opinion.”  I agree Jo-Anne.  I’ve always been amazed with the amount of imprecision in education research. 

Perhaps medicine is easier because you see person is sick - give person medicine - person gets better - aha! we have a cure.  Education doesn’t seem to be that clear-cut.  Johnny and Mary can’t read - give them program A - Johnny learns to read, Mary doesn’t.  Do you have a cure?

That fundamental problem has always made me shy away from the all-or-nothing, flavour-of-the-month, baby-with-the-bathwater ‘cures’.  I honestly don’t know why people debate programs like phonics.  If it has been proven that (for argument’s sake) 80% of students learn to read with phonics - then why don’t we teach phonics?  Then, determine the 20% that are still having difficulties and put them on some other program.  Why are the education arguments always like this, “Phonics only works with 80% of students, so we ditch that and use whole language on everyone”? And what?  Now we have 60% or fewer students that can read?

As far as SES is concerned, remember the old phrase, “If all you have is a hammer ...”?  Someone did mention that it is problematic inserting American issues in the Canadian context.

“teaching kids to read ought to be educators’ number one priority, since all subsequent learning depends on it.”  I totally agree with this and taught all my 5 kids to learn to read early. immigration lawyer seattle