Worth repeating:
“?What he discovered is surprising for its simplicity and portends good news for the teaching profession. He did not find magicians mixing secret alchemical teaching potions or derive the elusive DNA for charisma. And, more important, he did not unearth any truth behind the pernicious lie that the most effective teachers simply come across well because they have the easiest or brightest students. No, what he repeatedly saw and captured on video, beyond the no-shortcuts preparation and an essential mind-set of high expectations, were highly skilled individuals, working with a common, discrete set of tools, building systems of classroom culture and instruction, brick by brick.?

Brick by brick, and even more amazing when teachers are faced with the bureaucratic rules that are imposed on them. This holds true for parents, that is the bureaucratic rules, but a good teacher can help soften the rules that constricts the parent’s ability to overcome many of the bureaucratic rules that prevents help for their children.

Here is a newspaper link, an American one where even the IDEA laws are of no help, and how school boards are using the IDEA laws to protect the processes and evaluations procedures of schools and boards. Parents are now being sued if they disagreed with the evaluations and methods used by the school. Guess what, it all started out with a simple request of a goal for handwriting. “?This is all over a handwriting goal,? she said. ?Just give us a handwriting goal.?
http://rosevillept.com/detail/153319.html?content_source=&category;_id=&search;_filter=&user;_id=&event;_mode=&event;_ts_from=&event;_ts_to=&list;_type=ℴ_by=ℴ_sort=&content_class=1⊂_type=&town;_id=

In the case of my child, the teacher was always the most important factor, but often got in the way was the bureaucratic rules, criteria and other hindrances that came from the top. In my opinion it interferes with the building of systems of classroom culture and instruction.

It’s a good book. I recommend it. However, Lemov is handicapped by his own ignorance of the background to many of the successful “techniques” he enumerates.  For example, he credits the founder of New England’s Amistad Academy for the “I/We/You” format, but it was developed and promoted by Anita Archer, among others, long before Amistad Academy was a gleam in somebody’s eye. Similarly, he seems unaware of the research and training of Fred Jones into effective teachers and what they do. Jones’ work goes back at least 30 years, so Lemov is re-inventing the wheel in many ways. Wow! It turns! Gee whiz! You can move things easily….

It would have helped if he had some background in the history of instruction and effective teaching. Barak Rosenshine, Wesley Becker, Fred Jones and Michael Pressley have covered similar (even the same) ground quite thoroughly, and Lemov seems unaware of their work. Nevertheless, it’s an upbeat book with many positive tips for teachers at different levels. The inclusion of the DVD is also a good move—there are things you can only learn by seeing and doing, not only from reading about them. That’s one feature that makes Mary Damer’s book, Reading Instruction for Students Who Are At-Risk or Who Have Disabilities so powerful.

He makes a number of small points, such as the necessity of standing still while addressing students if you want their full attention. If you employ, as you should, MBWA (Management by Walking Around), this is something to keep in mind.  He also emphasizes the importance of student mastery before moving on to the next level or topic. Another point he made is that effective teachers are both “warm” and “strict”—warm meaning, approachable, kind, caring and nurturing, while “strict” means demanding, pushing the student to do more and better, consistent, ready to enforce consequences but in a non-derogatory way.  While these are seen as opposing characteristics, they actually are flip sides of the same coin: concern for the best interests of the student. He does a good job here.

He also addresses issues rarely covered in general teacher advice: the importance of pacing, unison responding, requiring student answers (he calls this the “No Opt Out” policy), the importance of managing transitions effectively, building classroom community, and much more. There is not much, if anything, that is *new* here, but it is in a easily-accessible format and is a good introduction for new teachers and a good refresher for experienced ones.

The book does look like as though it was rushed to press without proper editorial vetting; there are errors of terms and punctuation that should have been caught on first draft. It would also have benefited from a “Suggested Reading” appendix where some other relevant works could have been listed.

Nancy,
You will notice that he is interested in the VERY FEW schools that escape their SES catagory. You have been in denial about this point over and over. Of course every thinking person is in favour of any reforms that can actually break up this seeming Iron Law of SES predictability. Looks like the USA may start moving in the other direction though due to the financial crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063004622.html

Here we go again,Doug, trying to connect SES factors with hard to teach kids. All I have express that I agree with the statement, ” No, what he repeatedly saw and captured on video, beyond the no-shortcuts preparation and an essential mind-set of high expectations, were highly skilled individuals, working with a common, discrete set of tools, building systems of classroom culture and instruction, brick by brick.?

As I agree with what TDSBNW has added.  I have never stated that SES does not influence outcome. What I have stated, that SES factors have often been the excuse for not having reforms. As for the article, it is American, and they do have a different school structure than Canada. But here in Canada, there is already cutbacks taking place, and there will be more to come, if Harper follows through on his austerity plans. The cuts may take place at the board and ministry levels, like cutting some of the more high price help they have.Cuts will take place, rather than reforms in the system that will change the funding models and how money is spent.

Nobody says it cannot be overcome but it is very difficult and expensive. Small classes ELP and a special focus on the classes of the poor is what is necessary.

You have said repeatedly that there is no connection between poverty and achievement or poverty and SE. Yet when Malkin says it, it is ok.

The connection between poverty and achievement is so profound it is almost the only issue worth discussing.

Doug, you have never related the Canada stats regarding low-income level which is just under 10 % for 2008, and how it can be justified to fund low-income kids over and above all other groups of kids, including the various SE kids. Why not, and this certainly would save a great of money, by providing an education for all, that includes all will be able to read, write well and do basic numeracy well by grade 6. What do you with schools that are balanced with the different income groups? Are you suggesting to discriminate on the basis of income, because they have less things and can do less things, because their parents cannot provide these things?  Of course if this ever became a law, which I highly doubt it, but if it did, many parents of other incomes will start to fudge on their income to the school.

Doug you are so hung up on the picture of United States, that Canada’s picture is lost to you. Being low income in Canada is much different than being low income in United States. Saying that, a report from the Canadian Education Statistics report, “Although the influence of socioeconomic level on reading decreases with effective classroom instruction (D?Angiulli and Siegel 2004), students from lower socioeconomic levels tend to
perform less well on measures of reading achievement. They are also more likely to drop out of school than their counterparts from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Arnold and Doctoroff
2003; McLoyd 1998; Yeung, Linver, and Brooks-Gunn 2002).”
http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/.../key-factors-literacy-school-aged.pdf

In the above link, they stress instruction.

Other studies conducted by Ontario agencies, indicate that achievement in low income groups, shows that it is the rural student population who is achieving less than their urban counterparts. This is the complete opposite of what is happening in the United States. I would point out in rural areas, it is access issues dealing with the Internet, cell service, and the costs of it. In NL, rural achievement jumped when policies were introduced to put in the infrastructure in the rural communities and to ensure fair rates, that were on par to urban areas. I have not seen any studies comparing services in rural areas and cities to achievement rates. But I would say, it impacts a great deal, just observing the low-income group in my own community and what they purchased for their kids. By the time they are three, they have their own laptop.  They may not have a car in the driveway, but these kids have lap tops, and cell phones by the age of 8 or younger. Even I am thinking of going competely wireless, because it is a cheaper option at the moment.

Here is the link to the one study,  “The location of a school and the socio-economic profile of its neighborhood were also linked to student
achievement on the tests. Students from rural schools scored 2 points lower than those from urban schools. This contrasts starkly with U.S.
research showing that elementary students in urban schools perform below their non-urban counterparts, even after accounting for the higher
concentration of low-income students in urban U.S. schools.11 “
http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/grade3ontario.pdf

Here is another study from the Sick Kids of Toronto.
It is called, The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children. It is coming from a medical view point.

“Canadian and international research on educational outcomes has revealed important data on the effects of schools and classrooms. Frempong and Willms (37) used complex analyses of student performance in mathematics to demonstrate that Canadian schools, and even classrooms, do make a difference in student outcomes (ie, students from similar home backgrounds achieve significantly different levels of performance in different schools). Furthermore, schools and classrooms differ in their SES gradients (ie, some schools achieve not just higher scores, but more equitable outcomes than others). These general findings were corroborated by Willms (38) using reading scores from children in grade 4 and those 15 years of age from 34 countries. Once again, it was demonstrated that schools make a difference and that some schools are more equitable than others. According to Thomas (10), activities other than academics, such as sports and lessons in the arts, have been shown to increase student?s school readiness despite SES. These activities should be encouraged in all schools to maximize school readiness.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/

The above link offers a balance, where often Doug, your viewpoints on SES are not balanced, It is time for you to explore what schools do different in dealing with their SES factors. Even in this report, parents still hold the cards as the greatest influence on their children.

Nancy, achievement is directly related to SES everywhere in the world. The denial of this Iron Law simply makes you look foolish. Can it be mitigated? Yes. Is that easy? No it is very difficult and expensive.

Nancy,

Compensatory education or giving more money to poorer schools so they can have smaller classes has been around for decades in many countries. We already do discriminate by income in funding. Believe me nobody fudges their income to get into a poorer school.

Lets just say it was up to me Nancy, it won’t be but it clarifies matters.

Divide all the schools into quintiles of 20% by income.

1) Bottom 20% by income Poor kids, many parents unemployed welfare etc. class sizes 12 for every class. Teachers paid extra $20 000, hand picked for ability and empathy, principal hand picked paid $20 000 more same with VP. Given huge budget for supplies outside expertise, reading experts on staff full time.

2) Next to bottom, parents employed in low paying jobs. Class sizes capped at 15, Teachers paid $10 000 extra, hand picked, same for principal and VP, reding experts visit on regular basis but not on staff. Very healthy budget for extras.

3) Middle catagory. Parents have jobs with good pay, may be mix of skilled blue collar jobs and professionals. Class sizes of 18, no extra for staff.

4) Middle class. Parents all have lower paid professional jobs, teacher, nurse, journalist etc class size capped at 20. No extra pay.

5) Upper middle class. Class sizes capped at 22, no extras.

Trouble is, in TDSB, Quintile 2 trumps Quintile 4.Hard to justify paying teachers and principals a lot more for high-achieving students while teachers of those poorly achieving middle-class kids earn less, kids are in bigger classes.

That would never get past the Equity Police.

You mean #2 has more schools or kids? Ya so what. To me, this is the price of success. I don’t by any silver bullet teaching methods although there may be something to it for some kids, I am convinced at this point there is no easy way to break the poverty-achievement crisis. Grinding it out with more resources and incentives to get best teachers into poor classes is the best way.

No, I mean the second-to-bottom quintile has very high achievement—better than the lower and middle-middle class, despite being mostly low-SES, subsidized housing, ESL, large families.

The contention that more resources and better-paid, better-qualified teachers is THE answer was rather conclusively confounded by the Coleman Report.  At best they are only partial solutions.

I read the Coleman report like 1000 years ago. Actually proves the connection that achievement and poverty heavily linked (somebody please tell Nancy).

Yes these are partial answers but they are the best we have until we eliminate poverty.

I suppose you are willing to keep progressive education or the excuse-me education in full bloom, It would certainly create social inequities, the very same ones you are attempting to eliminate.  Here is a link, describing a man, who did come from a poor background.

.“But what’s most interesting to me is his version of the No Excuses philosophy of how to educate poor, minority children.  It’s similar to other comparable high-performing schools, but Chavis takes it to an extreme.  It starts with his Golden Rule: “If you act like a fool, you’ll be treated like a fool. If you act like a winner, you’ll be treated like a winner.”  He lavishes praise and will do anything for kids who work hard and play by the rules—but woe unto the student who acts like a fool.  To them, Chavis turns into one of the craziest, scariest, meanest dudes on the planet.  Ditto for parents and teachers who act like fools. 
He’s borderline crazy (and proud of it), but it works! “

I kind of agree with him. But there is more on his views of public education.

“...Most public school educators do not see eye to eye with me. I didn’t agree with the philosophy of victimization then; I don’t agree with it now. I have no problem badmouthing educators who cheat minority students with their pity, community circles, bead making, general math for twelfth-graders, bilingual education for twelve years, sheltered English immersion, and low expectations. Can you think of a better way to screw over minorities in education and dumb us down?

We get the watered-down academics, the victimization, and the teaching of culture, while most middle-class students get rigorous English, math, science, and history courses. Is that logical? Where did educators come up with this idea that minorities are so fragile? We are resilient people; we don’t need kid gloves; we need a sound academic education and educators who prepare our children to work hard and be as smart as any other group of people.

When whites disagree with minority educators and their liberal dogma, they’re labeled racists. When I disagree with minorities and liberal do-gooders, they say I’m trying to be white. Hell, how does a hardheaded Indian like myself turn white? Do they think I’m God and can change my race?”

All you have done Doug, is replace minority with low-income. Creating a new dividing line in education along income and ideology. Again give all kids a sound academic education, and equity issues will sort themselves out on their own. The great equalizer is a sound education.

http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2009/08/books-whitney-tilson-reviews-crazy-like-a-fox.html

Nancy, If you think it is easy to turn around the education results of poor kids with silver bullet solutions and no excuses slogans you have a lot to learn.

Thousands have taken their solutions and their sweat to this problem to no or little avail. It is very easy to say for OUTSIDERS because they don’t have to do it.

I keep yelling at the Leafs asking why we can’t have a decent hockey team. Easy for me, I am just a critic, I don’t have to actually do it.

Nobody is talking about dumbing down. In the USA for example, I believe that every state should be forced to meet a Minnesota or Massacheusetts curriculum but the low achieving states fight this because under that system almost everybody in Mississippi and Louisiana will fail.

I do not believe in high school streaming below grade 10 and I would do everything possible to phase it out above grade 10. Every high school kid should get the Academic-University program.

You are totally confused between socialist reformers and liberal reformers. We are not hand holders.

If you want a short cut to what I believe picture an elite private school education for everybody. High expecttions, high level curriculum taught in very small classes with tons of support like tutoring until everybody can get it.

I will be happy when a kid from Regent Park is every bit as likely to go to Harvard as a kid from Rosedale just a few blocks but worlds apart.

I work hard to polarize the debate between classes because this is the key to helping the poor. The poor must become fearless and the rich must fear the poor.

This is the only way out.

The socialist reformer is worst than the liberal reformer. I rather have the hand holder, because the socialist reformer has already written off children who have learning problems. If a child does not fit, they get thrown in SE class, and be labeled to form the group working in low-education jobs.  As you have stated many times, they are too hard to teach.

Doug, you seem to forget how other variables impact schools. The changes in policies of governments, and more importantly the nature of mankind. What makes you think, everyone wants to go to university?  What makes you think that schools should be in charge of taking care of keeping society happy?  Again, the great equalizer, is to give all children a solid foundation in the three Rs, and let them sort it out what they choose to do with their life. Not everybody wants to get a degree. Some are happy doing other things, and besides Doug, who is going to pick up the garbage? 

Here is a link that should interest you. “These reforms have been occurring over many decades and are not unique to Alberta or Canada, but are global in scope. The results of the actions and reactions show that schools are institutes that reflect the broader issues of society and, as such, they are held responsible for a tremendous array of social reforms.”

How in your reform, will you control the outside variables that have powerful influence on education.?

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA Magazine/Volume 83/Number 1/Articles/Pages/A Brief History The Education Reform Movement in Alberta.aspx

And don’t let the title fool you.

Unfortunately the world doesn’t lend itself to being categorized into rich/poor,reactionary/progresssive, capitalist/socialist…etc

All sorts of government money, probably the bulk of it, is spent providing subsidies to the large chunk of society known as the middle-class, neither “rich ” nor “poor”

Consider:
McGuinty, after being in power for eight years, as never restored welfare rates to where they’d be after Harris “slashed” them yet he’s spending money hand over fist in all sorts of new areas.

Why?
Thd poor don’t vote.
Claiming to be concerned about those living in poverty, particularly children, is a comfortable standby for most politicians, however the reality is that the bulk of the money will flow into those most likely to vote for them, even those who shouldn’t need to be subsidized.

That is why McGuinty is a centrist Liberal. Almost the only good thing you can say about a Liberal is that they are better than a conservative.

Yes the Candian economy is a blend of socialist and cpitalist ideas.

Capitalist: All private businesses.

Socialist: Public education, medicare, public transportation, public pensions, EI, welfare, public housing, Canadian forces, police, firefighters, ambulence services, libraries, etc

Middle ground private non profit: Co-ops, grain pools, etc.

I would much rather McGuinty double down on the poor for both his class size reductions and the intro of ELP but he sees them as universal programs, much more difficult to cut or eliminate by future conservative governments because everybody benefits so they are sure to be very popular.

This is a little off topic, but I couldn’t find an appropriate place for it.  I was watching CNN today, and heard a story about Lansing Community College.  If you have been laid off, and go back to their school for re-training they will pay you back all your schooling costs if you do not find a job in your area of study within six months of graduation.

An interesting way to make schools a little more accountable to their students.  However, it does cut both ways.  How do they achieve this? They pre screen students to find the most employable.  They only offer it in two areas that have the greatest need.  In their words, they act like the employer.

Got me to thinking.  As teachers we are expected to act like a ‘judicious parent’ - what might we improve if we began acting as a ‘judicious employer’ instead?

Link to the college site is: http://www.lcc.edu/getaskill/

It is a common practice in Toronto private secondary schools now, catering to off shore mainly Chinese kids but other as well to guarantee acceptance at U of T or the university of the student’s choice. Of course the student must pass a test at the SSAT level and sign a contract that they will hand in every assignment on time and not miss even one class without a Drs note or an excuse accepted by the school. Of course the kids who can meet all of these criteria are the ones that would be going to U of T anyway but the parents love the guarantee. It also puts big pressure on the kids not to goof off.

“... sign a contract that they will hand in every assignment on time and not miss even one class without a Drs note or an excuse accepted by the school. Of course the kids who can meet all of these criteria are the ones that would be going to U of T anyway but the parents love the guarantee. It also puts big pressure on the kids not to goof off.”

Gee, imagine that.  The very issues I have been raising as an impediment to student success are recognized here and put in a contract to make the kids work.  Wow.  What a concept.  Perhaps we should do the same with the rest of the student population.  Or are we assuming that Canadian students can live up?

Yes, definitely, the students have responsabilities too.

At a very minimum the student’s responsabilities are: to show up on time, to pay attention, to do the homework on time all the time.
These responsabilities should be explicit and enforced consistently by the teachers and the school.

That’s what I like the most about public charter schools - if done right they get together teachers, students and parents committed to the same ideea.

So no more of the teacher teaching grade 5 doesn’t believe in homework so he doesn’t assign any.

No more the parent of this boy believes that boys are boys so his boy should not be disciplined when talks or moves around during class time interrupting the teacher and the others.

Different people have different beliefs about what’s best for their children, different teachers have different beliefs about what good teaching consists in.

Let’s have public charter schools so that gradually both the parents and the teachers can choose a school that they believe in and are willing to commit to.