I love Bill’s work, and this one in particular is intriguing.

I think that you have placed something in front of us that could be used on both sides of the language debate.

As an educator and a parent of two young readers, I find it a little problematic to draw the connection between scientific discoveries for which we can draw pretty strong causal links and things that aren’t as certain like “learning to read”.

Systematic teaching of phonics does not create good readers. I grew up under a phonics approach to reading instruction, but not all of us became good readers. I came to school already able to read quite well, but my parents used no formal instructional techniques.

Don’t get me wrong; I was very interested in learning about phonics, and loved the daily worksheets that we were given. I still love the study of language and how it works.

But I know that, even in grade 4, a significant number of my classmates were removed for remedial reading. We were all part of the same approach.

My point…I don’t think that the “science” behind the effect of phonics on reading success is the same as the “science” behind scurvy and oranges.

Stephen, what you thought was a phonics approach in the ‘60’s and ‘70s was not the same as what SQE refers to explicit systematic phonics and what in the UK is called synthetic phonics, but it was probably better than the disaster that occured with whole language and now “balanced” literacy. 

Ironically, the remedial reading your classmates received was likely explicit systematically taught phonics.
Jo-Anne will probably jump in here, as she is an expert in this field, to clarify more.  There is definitely specific scientific research in this area—50 years of it. 
It is just what she, and SQE, has said that teacher training and later inservicing are sadly NOT paying attention to the research. 

Respectfully, your last statement just proves Malkin’s point.

http://www.childrenofthecode.org says it all.

Oh Stephen,your statement is so wrong that I can`t even bear to reply.

There are 5 brain sequences when we all learn to read.If your brain doesn`t do this,you are memorizing.

The sequences are-phonemic awareness recognized by the brain through auditory and delivers message that the phonemes look a particular way,the letters,called phonics or phoneme grapheme connection.
Then,the words which become segmented in your left brain will be processed,if you read them a few times your brain will bond with them,for slow readers it will take up to 14 exposures,read Dr.Linnea Ehri,for those of us wired for language it will take as few as 3.
After your fluency is up the ease with which you read will allw you to be availble for comprehension.Yes,some strategies for developing it are well known but nothing brings children to reading comprehension like decoding fluency and automaticity.
The system`s refusal to accept an empirical study of the magnitUde of the NICHD falls in the education malpractice category.

Spelling and writing.
Children who are taught with whole language and balanced literacy beliefs are using the right brain hemisphere to memorize their words,thus they can`t spell.There is also tremendous ardour when writing because the auditory link to hearing words and writing them properly is undeveloped in today`s teaching.
I understand Malkin`s post today and we`ve never been more bombarded with information but nevertheless opinion cannot replace science.That`s what`s ruling the teacher training at University.It`s about a lot more than phonics.
There are more kids today than ever that struggle to read and spell and boys are particularly in need of logical explicit systematic phonemic instruction.By the way,phonemic awareness differs from phonics and it`s a 21st century discovery that is invaluable in conquering most illiteracy.
Dr,Marilyn Adams was called a Phonicator over 20 years ago when she showed her research.We stand in good company.

“My point…I don’t think that the “science” behind the effect of phonics on reading success is the same as the “science” behind scurvy and oranges. “

The science is behind, in the same way as the science is behind the medical discoveries.

What the education system, does not allow is the science behind language, reading instruction.

Below the world famous and respected throughout the world, the Haskins Laboratories, located at Yale.

“Disabilities and inadequate education prevent many more from learning to read and write. The science of the spoken and the written word promises to help these people participate more fully
in their humanity and our society. Haskins Laboratories has been at the forefront of this research for seventy years. It is the nation’s leading independent, multidisciplinary community of scientists studying speech, language, and reading. Its theoretical and technological breakthroughs are continually advancing the science of the spoken and the written word, and the
practical applications of its discoveries are
improving human communication.”
http://www.haskins.yale.edu/CaseStatement/Haskinscase.pdf

Starting on page 31, “Dr. Brady, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Rhode Island, felt frustrated that the knowledge about reading that researchers at Haskins Laboratories and
elsewhere had painstakingly accumulated over decades was not getting into the hands and heads of teachers. “There’s a chasm between the research
world and the educational world,” Dr.Bradysays, “that we must bridge.”

The site - http://www.haskins.yale.edu/

Happy reading, in showing the science behind language and reading, and the discovery that our public education systems practices, contains little base on science, but rather erroneous beliefs, like the fellow Lind, who ignored the pair that was given oranges and lemons, and stuck to his erroneous beliefs. In your case, it is the erroneous beliefs that the science behind language, reading and writing is not the same as science behind the medical discoveries.

A good read for anyone wanting to defer to science.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Read-Thinking-Learning-about/product-reviews/0262510766

Now why wouldn`t this book be recommended for teachers at University during their training?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_phonics#History_in_the_United_Kingdom

Seems the faster the UK brings in synthetic phonics, the farther behind they fall in PISA results from 7th to 25th.

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0070008/secretary-of-state-comments-on-pisa-study-of-school-systems

Status Quo educators is a political term from the talking points of the American Conservative Corporate reform movement. I have never met any “sStatus Quo” educators. Some want to pull education into the corporate reform direction (testing, vouchers, charters merit pay…..) and others want to pull it in the progressive direction (smaller classes, ELP, focus on the poor, higher education for teachers, more PD, more arts creativity, ...).

I can’t find ANY Status Quo educators.

“Oh Stephen,your statement is so wrong that I can`t even bear to reply.”

Thank you for trying, although the above statement sounds to be a little patronizing. I know that you didn’t mean it that way!

Your comments may be true for some learning to read, but they aren’t true for all. All beginning readers don’t need systematic instruction in the same way that all scurvy patients need what oranges and lemons can offer. That’s all I’m saying.

I’m not denying the value of this type of instruction for some.

“Children who are taught with whole language and balanced literacy beliefs are using the right brain hemisphere to memorize their words,thus they can`t spell.” That’s a pretty sweeping generalization. I don’t think that you can make that type of connection. Plenty of kids can spell. Just last week my four year old figured his way through the word “tomorrow” and “fantastic”. Not bad for having no formal phonics instruction to date.

Part of the “balanced literacy” approach does favour right brain activity, but other aspects of it are very analytical and require left brain functioning. For me the balance is important.

Sorry, phonemic awareness and phonics are different. Yes…

Status-quo referring to the education system, is deferring always to the best interests and agendas of the stakeholders within, and decisions are made on the ideology, beliefs and dogma rather than the science, and more importantly the best interests of the students and their education.

A lot of the trouble is teachers are not trained nor encourage to look beyond the literature and research within the public education domain. Research from outside of the public education field, are not passed down to the teachers, unless it has prior approval from the bureaucrats and educrats.

Nor are the language and reading research taught in the teacher faculties, A good teacher would look beyond why a student is not responding to the reading instruction, rather than looking for easy answers that blames SEC factors, A teacher or many can dance on a head of a pin, but what good is it, if the students do not make steady progress?

The printed word is an artificial construct - man-made.  The english language has well over 44 phonemic sounds and sub-sets. It is the phonemic sounds that are of the most importance, and if you read my links in the last post, you would understand the difference between phonemic sounds and phonics. As I expected the grade one teacher to explain phonemic sounds, but she did not know what I was talking about. But at the next meeting, she did know, but by than I have more advance questions that she could not answer at that time.

Reading is not an ability of intelligence, but reading and being taught to read forms the foundation for intelligence to expressed oneself verbally, writing and the act of reading is a tool for learning. What the present whole language approaches does not do, is to teach reading explicitly and systematically, so each and every student can expressed their intelligence, their strengths and talents in their school work, as well as the outside world.

There is much more to language, than the number of words a child knows by grade 1, and to teach reading, a person should know about language. Go on the Haskins site, Doug, as I encourage other teachers in the last 10 years to go on the research sites. They always came back amazed at the new knowledge they have learnt. You are as dismissive as the bean counters concerns with budgets, Time well spent, and the key to open up the doors for the low-income students. And there be lots of money save, for the nice to have things, such as two free meals per day, and even dental care.

The question I have going through my mind here is has to do with the profile of the students that need the direct interventions that you, Jo-anne are immersed in. What students absolutely need the direct interventions when it comes to phonemic awareness, and what are the early signs that this need exists.

http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/

and:

http://www.slideshare.net/profesorbaker/unlocking-reading-for-all-students-presentation

and for the UK:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383

http://www.syntheticphonics.com/synthetic_phonics.htm
 
http://www.synthetic-phonics.com/

Finally, “In the reading test, “OECD/PISA does not measure the extent to which 15-year-old students are fluent readers or how competent they are at word recognition tasks or spelling”. 
(from: http://www.slideshare.net/profesorbaker/unlocking-reading-for-all-students-presentation)

PISA Results

#1 Finland - balanced literacy
#3 Canada - balanced literacy

#25 UK - synthetic phonics

I’ve read the Fordham research before; still doesn’t answer my question about when to intervene in a more intense way.

The impression “out there” (outside of schools, that is) seems to be that word study, phonemic awareness, phonology and all of the other aspects of word awareness are not part of the language classroom at the early stages. That has not been my experience at all. In fact, the MOE has put millions of dollars into the support of quality language instruction (and they actually call it instruction) over the past decade.

I would love to have one of the school district language folks to get involved with this conversation.

Scotland

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383

NO gender gap
NO SES gap

PISA does not measure ready fluency or spelling. The testers assume 15 year-olds can already read.

Stephen,

Your question is a really good one because often intervention comes too late, a point when the problems are more difficult to fix.

SQE believes it is better to do the preventative medicine, thereby reducing the need for intervention.  http://www.schoolproofing.ca

Scotland has had a fine education system relative to its economic position for many many decades.

MEMES:

Evolution is not opposed only by creationists.  Not the best object lesson by which to illustrate your point.

Neither is the Galileo story.  For a recent illustration, I refer you to a lecture given at no less an august setting than the Perimeter Institute, by a distinguished historian of science.

A better example might be the chap who infected himself in order to prove that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria.

Or the long-held and still-propagated idea that the appendix is an evolutionary vestige.  In fact, at the time of the famous Scopes trial, almost two hundred human anatomical parts were considered ‘vestigial’ and they are not today.  And this was supposedly a victory for enlightenment.

The textbook used in US schools at the time, taught that the ‘negroes’ were an inferior race, just as Darwin had in ‘Descent of Man’, and spoke of degenerate imbeciles who would be better off put to death by society.  The eugenic ideas flourishing in the US at that time were studied and admired by the Nazis.  Not to mention the use of eugenic sterilization programs in Canada.

A final thought on evolution: More than one high profile (non-creationist) has pointed out that while evolution may be the ‘central organizing principle’ of biology, it is at the same time highly superfluous. That is, it is useless as to actual application in any field of science except evolutionary biology.

the children from less well off homes in this study
Study Conclusion

were only starting to fall significantly behind at the end of Primary 7, and then were still performing at or above chronological age on word reading, spelling and reading comprehension.

Conclusion?

Synthetic phonics cannot prevent students from disadvantaged backgrounds from falling significantly behind

Doretta, it sounds like a rational plan to intervene early. But I’m concerned that we are focusing our attention on some of the wrong things. Instead of treating those that do not read by a certain age as “diseased”, why not try providing them with some of the “surrounding” material that we know is important for reading success.

For example, we know that rich experiences of language (being read to, wordplay, natural experiences) are important for development and many that don’t follow the arbitrary developmental trajectories that we have imposed don’t have these same advantages. Let’s work to close that experience gap before moving them into a 12 step “recovery” process.

Instead, we panic because these students will affect our grade 3 test scores and we rush to “treat” the “disorder” instead of allowing more time for growth and development.

We have a triage approach to early learning, and this is not very effective.

Doug:

Really?????  What an interesting “insight” and so totally opposite to what the Clackmannanshire researchers found.

You appear have the most depressing and defeatest attitude for an educator.  The children are judged, labelled, and sentenced to lifetime of doom by the time they walk through the kindergarten door.  What’s the point? If SES is destiny, why bother then? 

Sad.

If you are talking to me or Stephen I don’t know. SES is not destiny but it IS the #1 factor by far and takes an enormous and expensive effort to overcome. The reforms mean an upheaval to low SES lives both inside and outside of school.

If a kid in Finland cannot read at all by 7 years of age it is no crisis because neither can anyone else. Seven is the correct age to start serious reading when all the kids are developmentally ready.

By age 15 , 8 years later they are the world’s best readers, in fact by age 8 they are reading better than many other nations where kids have had a 2-3 year advantage.

Yes they also have SE but they also do that better.

Poor kids do have about half the vocabulary of middle class kids on the very first day of kindergarten.

Of course I’m sure this is somehow the fault of the school or the teachers or the teachers’ union or “the blob”.

But Doretta, you know me, and you know that this is not true about me. But, this isn’t about me! I have great hope for the system and great hope for our children who enter it every year.

My only point here is that there are different ways of looking at children, childhood and this thing called education. Sure, there are things that we learn to do differently along the way, but I do sense that our system today tries to force kids into things that you and I learned to do just fine.

I’m sorry that my attitude is depressing to you. My participation here demonstrates that I’m not a defeatest.

But I would prefer to stay focused on the ideas and not on personal comments!

Stephen,

You misunderstand.  Kids who aren’t taught reading properly in the first place aren’t the problem, the teaching method is.  I agree with you about providing vocabulary etc.  But that is one part of reading—decoding has to be there.

You have to read the Adams—Why Whole Language Lives On, Illusion Of Balanced Literacy. 
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/

From the paper:
  “Here is what reading science actually tells us about effective literacy instruction:

All children need explicit, systematic instruction in phonics and exposure to rich literature, both fiction and nonfiction.
Although children need instruction in phonics in early reading development, even then, attention to meaning, comprehension strategies, language development, and writing are essential.
At all times, developing children’s interest and pleasure in reading must be as much a focus as developing their reading skills.
    “Well-done studies of reading instruction support systematic, synthetic phonics in which children are taught sound-symbol correspondences singly, directly, and explicitly. Further, such studies show that children should be taught directly how to blend those sound-spellings (such as the /ch/, /i/, and /ck/ in “chick”) until they can decode almost any unknown word. This instruction should be part of, and linked to, a complete instructional program that includes phoneme awareness, plentiful reading to build fluency, vocabulary development, and guided oral reading to build comprehension.”

You will see the faculities really have done a poor job of training primary elementary teachers to do essential parts of the equation.

I will read.

I agree with you on the faculty piece.

Is there anything in the balanced literacy approach that resonates with your viewpoint. Children are still learning to read. To what can we attribute that?

I’m convinced that I learned to read in spite of my school experience, but I was too young to remember.

Sorry Stephen, Emails are crossing in the mail so the responses didn’t line up.

My comment was reponding to Doug and not you.

To All Readers,
I think we all forget the original post of the blog and go off on tangents.  Better to stick to the discussion at hand.  When the discussion turns to Finland and the like for the millionth time, it’s over and the comments will close.

In returning to the original post (I appreciate the refocus), in characterizing differing perspectives on something that we are still learning about as being “blind” is not helpful. It closes conversation and limits quality debate.

I come here for the conversation…

Is that the same thing as when you start losing the discussion is over?

I will tell you what, here is how we keep score.

All the people who learned how to read using balanced literacy count for the progressives and all the people who did not learn to read well are your score.

It is hardly the fault of progressives that Finland proves every single aspect of the reform agenda is wrong.

Stephen,

Yes, some children do manage to make the sight-sound correspondences in spite of pervasive whole language ideology in the curriculum. 

My eldest son did, but he also had older teachers (this in the mid-‘80s) who despised whole language and taught them phonics behind closed doors.  I still have the phonics workbooks they used. 

My daughter did not.  It took some intervention on my part.  The teacher was a huge whole language proponent and didn’t seem to mind that my daughter could barely print her name at the end of Grade 1, guessed words that didn’t exist in the text, didn’t perceive those she couldn’t decode, essentially, she couldn’t read much of anything.  Needless to say, with child number three, I school-proofed.  I wasn’t taking any chances at that point with WL being the flavor of the decade.  Special education rates skyrocketed.  Connection? Hmm.

What SQE concerned ourselves with, were the increasing numbers of children who didn’t make those decoding connections (and yes they came from all SES backgrounds) and needed to be taught explicitly along with fluency practice using connected text.  At the same time, children need exposure to vocabulary, etc.  Read Louisa Moats “Key Components of Reading Instruction”.

I will gladly email you the article as it is too much to post here, but it is an easy read (pardon the pun).

SQE’s Stairway to Reading program meets Moats’ criteria for explicit, systematic instruction of phonics.  It is used by parents and teachers world-wide to both remediate and teach beginning reading.

“Is that the same thing as when you start losing the discussion is over?”

It’s not about YOU winning or losing, Doug. It’s about making sure that all children can learn.

It’s SQE’s mission.

Good night.

No it isn’t. It is the educational front of the massive class struggle at the heart of all politics and all history throughout human history.

There are basically 2 positions, the position of the rich (Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, the Waltons, the Wall St fund managers, the privatizing fast buck artists, the voucher charter crowd, the testers…..).

and on the other side

The progressives, the tribunes of the poor and oppressed who believe not only in equality of opportunity but equality of results. We favour higher taxes mainly on the rich but everyone if necessary, to provide much smaller classes for the poor, free dental, vision care, summer and after school, ELP, a vision to eliminate tuition, provide free nutritious meals at school, Use public money not only for only public school kids but for compensatory education.

I’m in the second group.

Doug, so you’re in the second group.  Yawn. What else is new?

Malkin’s post is about ignoring results so in your face obvious that one would have to be blind not to make a simple connection.  Her point is the education community has been ignoring the science of effective education practice, like reading instruction, for decades.

If you want to learn something, or add a constructive comment to the discussion, fine.  If you want to start the occupy Finland movement, we get the message, over and over and over….Canada is not Finland. we get it.

Then I guess we are not the UK where they use synthetic phonics or the USA where they have KIPP and charters and vouchers or anywhere else you would like to compare.

The point of the OECD is to make international comparisons so that we can all learn from those doing the best job. That happens to be Finland and the OECD a GIANT think tank that advises western governments on what policy to follow says you cannot do better than to follow Finland.

Canada has noone to learn from except Finland and Korea because we already do better than everybody else. We have nothing to learn from the UK or the USA because they are educaation disasters.

Stephen, what would happen if a parent came to you with the results of web reading tests, indicating the child was suffering from low phonemic awareness. Just curious, because you strike me as a thoughtful and curious teacher, that would not bowed down to an overbearing public education system, when parents has evidence that states the opposite of what they are saying.

It all started back in grade one and the word phonemic awareness, Today on the WWW, so many reading tests available, and I had my 16 year just take two of them, because I was curious if phonemic awareness would show up. Indeed it did, showing weakness in phonemic awareness, and no doubt her current assessment that is ongoing at the school, will show her main problem is phonemic awareness, with sequencing as the second problem. To no avail, what the school or the school board who decided on all matters, what my child needed was immediate intervention, but the so called experts determined otherwise. And yes the web-based reading assessments was dismissed, and my child was declared no problem in all things reading. 

You wrote, “Instead, we panic because these students will affect our grade 3 test scores and we rush to “treat” the “disorder” instead of allowing more time for growth and development. “

Not where I am sitting. The majority of practices and pedagogy is directed at the top 1/3 of the classroom, and the other 2/3rds of the class, are treated to a rush job of band-aid approaches, in various watered-down science and emphasis on ideologies, in the bid to lift them to the 50 percent pass rate. Anything after the 50 percent pass rate, is up to the students and their parents.

Would it not be better, if growth and development was actually connected to the cognitive science, the learning science and the brain research in the last 20 years.  No matter how enrich the classroom is with books, and the bells and whistles, my child would still have low phonemic awareness at the end of the day. Children need to be taught, especially my child. The web reading assessments done in grade one, were correct but the educrats at the board level dismissed them as easily as they did with my my questions. Quick to label, and even quicker to provide the prescription of quick fixes, and call it a day.

It shows in the stats, in all aspects of society. As well in my 16 year old child daily life in school, where she has one foot in the LD world and the other foot in the academic world. Did her other classmates who struggled early on follow her footsteps, No, she is alone and the other 20 or so are showing signs of learning struggles at the high school level, due to the weaknesses in some aspect or all aspects of the 3 R. The foundation skills crucial for advance high school work. The 20 students or so, I can list the outcomes where three are repeating grades, but my point is no one is thinking about the students entering grade one, and potential future outcomes of student. The three repeating their grades, the income is high, and two parents are professionals, and the other one owns and operates a thriving business. Back in grade one, they were seen as highly promising, and that is what whole language instruction approaches, or the new label, balanced literacy with a little bit of science thrown in. It puts students on the pathway of great risks, for their academic outcomes. For parents, their future is paying for tutors, or doing it themselves, and that is what is happening with the 3 students’ parents. The other 17 students, as well as the other three students, do not have a learning disability, but what they do have is a weak foundation in the 3 Rs. And the majority of them are better readers than my 16 year old who is dyslexic.

Now would any teacher know, that since 2003, any minor speech delay, that children are at great risk for reading struggles when they learned to read. Minor meaning a 3 month to 12 month delay. And it runs across all social/economic lines, no matter the environments enrich or not enrich. The fields in cognitive, brain research and other related fields are making advances in all parts of learning, development of children, as well as in the fields of learning.  It is hard to keep up, with the latest advancements, and the implications to the education of children.

My question is, what does the public education system exactly mean when they state growth and development of children. I somehow have my doubts not a whole lot is based on the science, when the educrats loved to plaster kids with labels, to be used as the future excuses when they have negative academic outcomes in the future.

Nancy,

Thank you for taking the time to post and pose this type of question. I’m just heading into a conference session now, so I won’t get back to this until later this evening. I would like to take as much time to respond as you did to suggest the question.

Instructional Casualties:

Dr. Reid Lyon: Absolutely.  Absolutely. The fact is that, oh how do I want to say this? I’ll just be blunt. When we look at the kids who are having a tough time learning to read and we went through the statistics, thirty-eight percent nationally, disaggregate that, seventy percent of kids from poverty and so forth hit the wall. Ninety-five percent of those kids are instructional casualties. About five to six percent of those kids have what we call dyslexia or learning disabilities in reading. Ninety-five percent of the kids hitting the wall in learning to read are what we call NBT: Never Been Taught. They’ve probably been with teachers where the heart was in the right place, they’ve been with teachers who wanted the best for the kids, but they have been with teachers who cannot answer the questions: 1)  What goes into reading, what does it take? 2) Why do some kids have difficulty? 3) How can we identify kids early and prevent it? 4) How can we remediate it?

Again, if we could prepare our teachers to know the depth of knowledge to answer those four questions, our data show that those are the teachers who are extremely successful with the most at risk kids. In all of our clinical trials we have never found one instructional approach that’s equally efficacious and beneficial for all kids with difficulties. So, what that means is that the teacher has to say okay, which programs have shown to be effective. Russ Whitehurst’s shop is working hard on the What Works Clearinghouse, looking at those programs that have been evaluated by good clinical trials and randomized designs - we have to have that. Indeed, some instructional programs are much better for some kids than others, no doubt about it. But even the best will leave some behind.

So, the teacher has to say, okay, here’s the program that I see has the most umph behind it scientifically, I apply that to my kids, I still have three who aren’t responding to this good program, so I have to know what it takes to learn how to read: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension. Where is my program not meeting the kid’s needs in these areas? So, the teacher has to know how to assess that range of foundational building blocks: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and has to assess the program intensity and clarity in terms of teaching those for those kids and then modify, adjust…

-The use of synthetic phonics in England is not statutory.
-The promotion of synthetic phonics by the UK government has only taken place since 2007, post the Rose Report.
- Most UK primary teachers have no idea of how to teach reading using synthetic phonics as the teacher training institutions they attended did not train them in the subject.
- It is extremely unlikely that present day 15 yr.olds in England will have received any synthetic phonics teaching when they started school.
- Most primary teachers in England are still not using synthetic phonics for teaching reading - Dec 2011 responses from teachers who took part in the Y1 phonics check pilot indicated that nearly three-quarters were still using multi-cueing /a range of strategies.
- The synthetic phonics teaching method positively excludes the use of of a range of strategies.

-

Jo-Anne, a very well-written perspective; it resonates with me as both a parent and an educator.

I think that this type of “relationship” with students is the dream of most teachers as they enter the profession.

So, the questions that your entry “excite” in my own mind is how to operationalize this type of “responsive” approach in today’s educational climate.

Teacher background knowledge is important. I agree. But so are the structures of school that both enable and limiit this type of “on the ground” decision-making.

It’s possible, but we need some ideological shifts in our thinking about school…especially the early years of the schooling experience.

O/T: Someone passed by my iPad this morning as the conference that I’m attending got under way. The SQE site was up and I was writiing a comment.

“Why are you on THEIR site”.

Hmmm…I enjoy the conversation.

Thanks Stephen.  the only side SQE is on is the one that makes sure all kids learn…

Thanks Stephen.  the only side SQE is on is the one that makes sure all kids learn…

If this is true, why are all of your “connections” and “links” to very conservative sites and right wing think tanks in Canada and the USA.?

There is nothing wrong with being a conservative in education or politics. The only thing wrong is hiding it and denying it in an attempt to appear to be “mainstream”.

I only wish that this space could be more welcoming to a diversity of viewpoints. I have pointed several of my colleagues here and, although they may read, there is no way that would jump into the conversation.

Too bad; I think that their perspectives would enhance the conversation.

Food for thought?

The Dougs of the world, as well as few of the major players within the education system, operates by making education decisions based on their own political ideologies.

I was pondering on that last night. In high school, I had two difficult teachers, who picked on students who dare to questioned his take on history or in business administration. At first, students thought it was hatred towards the Irish/Scot clans, but that did not panned out because other students with different ethnic/cultural backgrounds were also picked on. The more a student questioned the teachers on their take, it reflected back in grading of essays and tests. One day I took matters in my own hands, when I received a C- on an essay, that more or less concluded that communist governments were evil and the Marx socialism tenets should never be used to control the economic commerce of its citizens and economies.

At the end, I received a A- for the essay, and marks were taken off for grammar. Otherwise, my essay travel to different places beyond the high school, and all remarking that my essay is a A essay. The department head said I will not be having any more trouble, but than again I never had that particular history or business admin teacher again. What did the two teachers have in common?

There were life time NDPers, and what I was pondering last night,  how teachers political leanings affect students’ learning and what knowledge is learned in their classes.

The best teachers I ever had, had conservative leanings. Well-structured classes, high expectations, and more importantly all facets of debate and questions were welcomed in their classroom. There was no such thing as a stupid question, but was expected from students to support their arguments with the facts. It was in those classrooms, that I enjoyed the most, because I was actually learning new information. that presented a different facet from my own viewpoints.

Doug, you claimed that SQE is hiding their political bent, but I suggest to you the problems lie with the stakeholders of the education system who are hiding their own political leanings, in order to hijack the education of children to set the political direction of the education agendas, for their own self-serving interests, Much like the way the old USSR regime did in Russia, and we all know what happen at the end…........

No matter what Doug, socialist theorem based on Marx, will never become mainstreamed because it is not in people’s nature to be control by a small elite. Just like a public education system, who seeks control in all things education, dictating the terms,  and than expect students, parents and the general public to accept the responsibility for the failures of the public education system, without having the power to change things. SQE is mainstream, and has always been mainstream. and the voices that are dismissed within the public education system, as easily as the history teacher who had given me a C- because he did not like what I stated in my essay.

Do I get a prize for having read THIS far on the blog today? Because seriously, it’s getting to the point where if I see Doug and Nancy going at it AGAIN and in stereo (on Educhatter) I do not read the thread post.  It’s getting old and way to repetitive to be of value to those who have been through the system and know only too well that what Doug’s spinning is baloney…or bullocks as someone said here once. 

When reading through the posts becomes as frustrating as having kids in the public system, it’s no longer inspirational or new. I get the impression that Doug just inserts his opinion, NO MATTER WHAT the issue to stir the pot…nothing more. Nancy…quit taking his bait.

I too have pointed people here. Most are NOT teachers. I point them here to get away from the usual spin and gimmicks we’ve experienced. I point them here for something new and different and pro-active in terms of choice for parents.

The other side, that being the one the says they respect all view points….except when it’s not similar to their own, have many forums like this one. Unions have them, teachers have them, boards have them.  This is the one place where those outside the system get to speak up and try to hold the system to account.

What’s a total turn off for me is the hamster-wheel of issues and offerings that continue with few solutions or new ideas.

I don’t want to come here to listen to excuses about why students can’t learn. I come here to read about the possibilities that we don’t have here in Ontario because those who claim to be welcoming the diversity of opinions have their minds closed up tight.

Curious as to why Doug was allowed back to the forum even though he’s not changed his spin? Was is because if not for him the discussion dies off, that if we’re not fighting or arguing about education then their is not discussion?

I’ve always looked to SQE to chart new ground and they’re not disappointing in that respect. I just wish there was a safe haven for choice and best practices that didn’t keep getting mired in or settle for the old arguments and excuses. 

I often read Educhatter as well but if Doug’s looking to gum up the workings of education reform he’s succeeding.

Once again with the Red baiting Nancy. It kinda went outta style with Joe McCarthy and the Hollywood black lists.

The question is always this Chuck? It it an open forum or is it not?

I think you would like an open forum of only people who share your views on choice and certain pedagogical approaches then there will only be a dialogue that goes Nancy, Jo Anne, Chuck, John L, Malkin, Doretta and back around again. Where is Wayne Ing? Was he scared off?

There are a great number of teachers who share at least some conservative approaches to education but as soon as the pension bashing, salary bashing, benefit bashing, teacher bashing starts, any teachers head for the hills.

Doug you forgot to include instruction quality as well as other education matters, that outsiders have little influence. Or is that called teacher bashing as well?

Or should we talk about the parent bashing that occurs from time to time at the parent teacher interviews or other meeting of parents, inferring we have no rights to question the education quality and education being received for our children, because we don’t have a teacher’s certificate, and has nothing to do with a parent’s level of education. Some of the parents that have been put in their place have high levels of education, and most if not all walk away opting for private education.

Doug, you rather debate on ideological lines, rather than if the education policies are suitable for large-scaled education, and based on the outcomes of the education policies. Quality of education issues, and final outcomes gets in your way of moving the debate along ideological and political lines, where it serves the goals and agendas of the public education system.

Education should not be a politicized debate, but rather a debate on what is best for the children. Once politics enters the picture, as it often does, education policies are decided on the political lines rather than the best interests of the students’ education as a collective or on an individual basis. The reality is politics and its ideology is present with the education system, and must be discussed as one of the facets impacting quality of education.

I am still trying to figure out why some within the education system, think it is a good idea to have parents pay $10.00 for 90 minutes to understand the whys and how-tos in the current math curriculum.  It takes some nerve for a public education system to charge parents a fee, for curriculum information that should be clear, transparent and easy to understand. But the curriculum has never been clear and easy to understand, and now some within the system are charging parents for information that only the insiders have.

Another sign of the entrenched attitudes of the status-quo educators?  Maybe, but if there is a lack of response from parents, than it will be used for future attack on parents of why they should never be in charge of their child’s education and should never have a say in their children’s education.

What is next? Charging parents for report cards and parent-teacher interviews?

Nancy,

The lines of policy in education ARE ideological lines. BOTH sides believe what they are pushing is best for children. It is just painfully naive and I dare say disingenuous to say the phonics, testing vouchers charters merit pay position is not ideological it is just GOOD FOR KIDS. You will indeed make a fool of yourself in serious discussions with that position.

Status Quo educators is a rather profound insult to educators with a long list of proposed reforms that are just not congruent to your reforms. It is from the far right talking points in the USA.

You are speaking from a far right ideological position whether you recognize that or not is beside the point.

“You are speaking from a far right ideological position whether you recognize that or not is beside the point”

But perhaps it is precisely the point if any sort of valuable conversation is going to take place. If we can recognize our biases and ideologies, declare them, and understand them as perspectives as opposed to inalienable truth, we may have a better chance of doing what everyone claims they are doing, i.e. working for the good of our children.

In another post, Jo-anne suggested that I was proselytized in my teacher education program. She is probably correct. But I was 23 at the time. I wasn’t long out of the seminary!

But that was 30 years ago; I’m much better now at stepping outside of my own beliefs and taking a look at other perspectives.

I would also agree that faculties of education occupy a precarious type of space in the university community. They’re actually one of the new kids on the block. There are plenty of people teaching at OISE, for example, who have never really worked in education, and who never intend to.

Even within the research community at universities there are divisions and silos…barriers to the type of collaboration inside and outside of schools that would enrich our knowledge base and open up some minds!

I also wanted to say that I am rather suspect of any research that claims to have discovered the truth. Even though that may be the goal, and even though some research results look more promising than others, research opens the door to what is true; it should never close it. We’ve made that mistake too often in our history.

That’s not to say that the research that has been done cannot or should not continue to inform practice. It should. And the best of that research needs to be held up and made public.

The challenge for me is to make sure that my ideological biases are checked at the door when I read any research paper, monograph or dissertation. And that’s not always easy. The first step is to make sure that we know what those biases are, and be honest about them.

I guess I’m not the first to make that point here, and I won’t be the last.

To add, education policy planning, are an important process, as well as playing the central role for all education policies and the gathering of the stakeholders within the education system,

“In sum, a balanced perspective of policy making places analytical rationality within the context of political and institutional aspects of policy
making. This is in line with Douglas North’s pioneering work on institutional economics that gained him the Nobel Prize in 1 993. In addition
to modifying the rationality postulate, he extended the economic theory by incorporating ideas and ideologies into the analysis and allotted a fundamental role to institutions for societal change: they are “the underlying determinant of the long-run performance of economies”. (North 1990).
This balanced view of policy making is most appropriate for education. Studies of educational policy making all point to the complexity
and multifaceted character of this process due to the nature of both the educational system and the educational change.”
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/11_200.pdf

Research on education policy planning is taking place mostly in the upper levels of the education faculties and beyond. A lot of it is dry reading, but informative how much they do know about the lower levels of the public education system, good well-planned policies are often hijacked by the ideology and dogma of the stakeholders as well as the individuals jockeying for power grabs or their ideological stances holding sway.

It is why I believe firmly, that the stakeholders within the education system must recognized their biases and ideologies, and as Stephen has stated, successful education of children can than be a reality and not a vague goal of wishful dreams.

From a parent’s perspective, and the literature supports it, especially in public policy planning that parents main concerns are education quality, and they make their decisions based on quality and not on ideological and/or political grounds. But often the decisions of parents are based on the information of the education system, and in turned the information content is more ideological based, than fact-driven, and it results in parents to decide on ideological grounds rather than what is the best interests of the child.

Education policies such as SE policies often give way to instruction practices and other practices that are based on the dogma. At the end of the day have not lift achievement for the SE students because their foundation skills in the 3 Rs are weak, due to incorrect instruction practices that are based more on the ideology, than the actual facts and research-based work of the last 60 years.

Education policy planning, more research is taking place inside and outside of the public education system. Governments cannot afford the luxury of spending tax dollars to satisfied the ideology and dogma needs, because it does nothing in increasing quality or the actual achievement or the education of students.

They are none so blind than the ministries of education, when it comes to research taking place in the federal silos and other outside places of interest.

Learning Policy Directorate
Strategic Policy and Research
Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada

Entitled: Can Learning Disabilities Explained Low Literacy Performance?
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/rhdcc-hrsdc/HS38-22-2010-eng.pdf

“Rather a moving away from service provision
based upon diagnosis has a greater probability of
meeting the needs of a wider more diverse group
of the population. Of course such suggestions will
be met with hostility and fear by those who have
a vested interest in the area of LD. However, this
will largely be grounded in concerns about the loss
or reduction of needed services. Actively allying
these fears through implementation of remedial
programming and continued support will go far
to addressing these issues.”

More than likely the above federal study is sitting on dusty shelves of the ministries of education, because the last they want, LD student becoming less needy for services.

“In short, simple and inexpensive methods are available to identify children at risk for reading difficulties and, children and adults with reading problems; while specific, effective interventions can be made available if appropriate funding is allocated. Shifting resources from diagnostics to provision of service would allow for increased investment in remedial services, better
programming and likely better outcomes for those
who are experiencing difficulties.”

Ignoring all the research, that reading struggles for all students, and must be remediated ASAP, and not 20 years down the road, in adult education. Accommodations does not remediate reading difficulties, but learning the phonemic sounds does wonders for low-literacy adults who have never been taught.  In the research and papers I have read out of Europe, some educators considers the adult remediation in reading and writing, teaching life skills rather than teaching adults the reading and writing skills.

“The Development and State of the Art of Adult Learning and Education” by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and in collaboration with the Canadian Commission for UNESCO.
http://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/194/FINAL CONFINTEA VI en.pdf

Typical paper filled with data streams and numbers, where the data is shaped to reflect the viewpoints within the education ministries.

The aim of the report, “The focus of the report is on policies, research, and effective practices in literacy, non-formal education, adult, and lifelong learning..”

Not much I can see, but the intent to continued to pump more money into adult education without changing the low-literacy stats one percentage point downwards.