Your answers to not address my statements. ie graduation rates do not address community college programs.

OECD 15 year olds chart for literacy of 15 year olds
Chart # C01 12 .1

Reading Finland #1 Canada #2
Math Finland #1 Netherlands #2 Canada #3

The Heritage Report? Don’t make me laugh out loud. An extreme right wing think tank says spending more on education doesn’t help? Somebody stop the presses. Surely you can do better than that. The public in Ontario loves its teachers and local schools, wants smaller classes and more teachers, wants more money spent on education and is willing to pay more in personal taxes to make it happen.

BTW they don’t support money for private schools, especially religious private schools.

My God, did you read your own link? In math of 57 nations only Finland and Hong Kong did better in math. Hong Kong is a totally artificial construct, a very high performing city in an untested nation. In other words only Finland as an actual nation performed better. Read the report. In reading only Finland Korea HK and Canada are listed at the very top. HK is not a country so in reading Finland, Korea and Canada are in a statistical tie. If you look at my past posts I have been saying that Korea is a comer because they have cut their class sizes almost in half and it is really paying off.

Good thing Doug hasn’t anything to say based on the truth and spun for his own purpose…whatever that is?

What I find interesting is that in no way are the OISE survey findings an indicator of what “Ontarians” want or don’t want.

Oh how the web is being wrapped around Doug. Getting a little tighter, eh Doug?
From the conclusions of EQAO:

“Student results on EQAO tests are only one measure of achievement but, over more than a decade, they have proven to be a catalyst for positive change for young people across the province. Literacy and numeracy skills have steadily improved, with more students now reaching the provincial standard than ever before. For example, in the year 2000 only half (50%) of Ontario’s Grade 6 students were meeting the provincial standard in reading. In 2009 that number increased to 69%, which represents over 20 000 more students meeting the standard in 2009 than in 2000. While progress has been noted in many areas, a collective effort must continue to expand teaching strategies that evidence shows are working to tackle the learning gaps that continue to exist in the province. For example, EQAO data continue to show that only 38% of students in the Grade 9 applied math program are successfully meeting the standard. Results also reveal that more than one in five students are not meeting the standard for reading, writing and math when in Grade 3, nor are they meeting it three years later when in Grade 6. EQAO data are essential for identifying where interventions are needed next.”

Doug, by grade 7 the interventions being placed are not effective. As a parent who has a child with reading and writing difficulties, I am not at all impressed with improvements. The year 2000, only 50 % of children were at the provincial reading standard, and in 2009, 69 %.  Truth be told, if I was a paying customer, I would be upset at the snail’s pace in reading levels.

But there is more, where math levels for the grade 9 applied level, only 38 % are meeting the math standards. So, 62 % are failing what amounts to be basic arithmetic. Basic arithmetic that is crucial for every day living, and it does solved the problem while renovating my home last summer, and clerks who either questioned my math figures or the other problem, they did not have the knowledge to figure out how much I would need.
Of course this problem could be easily solved where 95% of children would become accomplished readers and numeracy by grade 7, and where the other 5 % will have the funding for the specialized targeted help, for them to come up to speed. Of course, that would mean less money for the curriculum publishers, and others whose best interests, do not lie with the children.

As SQE states, and many more within the education system, such as trustees and ministerial staff, are coming to the same conclusions.

“SQE favours the approach supported by the most extensive and credible research: a strong focus on direct instruction, including phonics, drill, and rote learning, in the early years to establish a solid base of literacy and numeracy on which to build students’ education in the higher grades. Once students have this base, the judicious use of less traditional methods, such as discovery and computer-assisted learning and a focus on higher-order skills, can be very effective ways to engage students and improve learning outcomes. ”

I love it how Chuck just dismisses the oise poll because it is not congruent to his way of thinking. Chuck it is YOU that is out of step not oise.

Nancy, 1) I’m tired of hearing about your daughter.
Of course a lot of Applied kids don’t meet level, that is why they are in applied. Duh.

Did somebody say the Ontario system is perfect? I missed that. I have said over and over it is one of the best in the world and the oise poll shows:

High satisfaction level

To fix it;
More money, higher taxes, more teachers, smaller classes, more spec ed but

No to public money to private schools especially religious schools.

Doug,

1.  With regard to your comment that the OECD rankings do not include community college, in fact they specifically include “vocationally-oriented tertiary education” - in other words, community college.

2.  With regard to your comment about literacy rates of 15-year-olds, could you please supply a link so that we will know what you are referring to.

3.  With regard to your comment about discounting the information about the non-correlation between spending and student learning because it comes from the Heritage Foundation, it is not a legitimate debating technique to reject an argument solely on the basis of its provenance. That would be like rejecting all of Doug Little’s arguments just because they come out of his mouth. In a real debate, arguments are evaluated in terms of their own logic and truth. Is there something in the Heritage Foundation paper that you can refute?

4.  With regard to the PISA math rankings, ahead of Canada were Taiwan, Finland, Hong Kong, south Korea, Netherlands, and Switzerland. Hong Kong, as a proxy for China, is deemed a country. With regard to the PISA reading, ahead of Canada were Korea, Finland, and Hong Kong. And, BTW, South Korea has always done well on these international assessments, for example placing 2nd in the 2000 TIMSS-R for grade 8 math students and tied for 3rd in science.

Doug, my daughter is just one of the many examples, that the public education does a very poor job on. She represents 60 % of the student population.

Applied math at the high school level,does not give the students the skills needed in either college or university. It is a waste of resources at the high school level, to spend money on the basics of arithmetic, that should have been taught in the lower grades. It is a sad tale of the state of education, how the public education system have written off 60 % of the children and it is parents like myself have to pick up the responsibility to ensure that they have the basics.

It is attitudes like yours toward children who do not blossom under the current public education system, the children are blamed for the inadequacies of the public education system.

It surely proves to me, that you care not one kernel for the education of children in the public education system, because of your repetitive negative statements, regarding children who learn best with direct instruction.

Links take far to long if they are long. I am looking right at the chart I gave.

Heritage is not a legitimate research organization they are a propoganda organization like Fraser Institute and CD Howe.

They can say what they want about Hong Kong but the literacy rate of HK is not a stand in for China, it is at the very top of China. China has the greatest number of female illiterates in the world, even more than India. Korea is legitimate but read the StatsCan report. Statistical tie with Finland Korea and Canada top three in reading in the world. The chart I sited says Canada #2 behind Finland.

Nancy, Some children are very difficult to educate. That is not the system’s fault. Everyone is doing their best. Trying to shift the blame onto the system may make you feel better but doesn’t really help anyone.

There is a tendency for special ed parents to say, my child is not doing as well as others and is not catching up to the rest so the system is rotten. My daughter was clever enough but had mild psychological, anxiety, panic attack problems which effected her learning. She is a college grad and dental hygenist now. I don’t blame the system for any of her problems. They did their best.

I am beginning to wonder, if Doug is not an accomplished reader, as her pretends to be. He complains about the links being long. I wonder how he would do, in the literacy testing portion, concerning information material.
The links that have been provided, are rather short and to the point. Furthermore, if one wanted more information, there are links that are provided, for clarity.

Mr.Little, with all due respect I think you are missing the point in Nancy’s posts.

Her daugther is not falling behind but catching up and - based on results - her daughter would qualify to be in academic level in high school.

** Nancy, although not a certified teacher, was able to teach her daughter while the system was not.

She is asking why couldn’t the system that she pays taxes for and that has experts not been able to teach her daughter?

** Also, in a previous post Nancy was saying that based on her marks and performance on tests her daugther should be allowed to be in the academic stream and it seems she would not be allowed based on the counselor’s opinion.

Nancy is questioning why the choice is forced on her daugther based on somebody’s subjective opinion and not on her daughter results?

If her daughter is willing and able to put the extra effort to achieve the results necessary for academic why should she be forbidden from making the choice?

Nancy, if I misunderstood the essence of your previous posts, please correct me.
Unlike Mr.Little I did not study English in university and I speak English as a second language.

Malkin,as usual a very articulate post from a true education professional.Trying to create transparency in the smoke and mirrors political Ontario education public school segment is no easy feat and I commend you.

I would like to discuss a recent discovery from 2 very large school boards we are consulting with..I am falling in love with schools and their educators .They are well intentioned.I believe in public schools 95% of the children are there.
Here is what they have confided in me-we are in shackles due to the Ministry guidelines on how we must teach.
Ontario Schools Boards are on a course of failure because the Captain has charted the wrong course-I refer to the Ministry-some school boards with a soul,I know they may not all have one-really care and are so well intentioned.I know this,I am in the trenches and one thing I want to convey that the Ministry guidelines are to blame.
With the advent of the Internet,there is no one that does no know about reading research and they feel helpless and compromised.Those are my findings..

I did not miss anything. I just say CONSTANTLY bringing your own child into the debate is off putting and myopic. Anedotal stories are not taken seriously.

Just listen to yourself Doug. They did their best. I have news for you Doug, 80 % of children who had been identified as having a special need, their learning needs were ignored for the most part. Most of the 80% are in the regular classroom, and these children are most dependent on the knowledge of the teacher, when it comes to special needs. Just ask the parent, who has a child with junior diabetes, and the frustrations of trying to tell teachers every year, the implications between sugar levels and learning.  How many teachers take it to heart, is a question that needs asking. How many teachers take it as a affront to their teaching, is another question?

It is the system, Doug that is design where anything outside the norm, is pushed down , that would interfere in the operations of a public education system.  A system, where teachers are not required to do further study on their own time or a system, that does not provide key information, on how teaching methods may impede learning.

On the contrary, most special education parents do point out a system, that is not effective at meeting their own children’s needs, due to all the reasons cited here, and in other places. Often it is the education system that points their finger at the child. Your child is slow, your child has a development delay, your child will always have difficulties, and so forth. Often parents you do object, are the parents that are slated for nasty treatment by the education system.
My child and many others like her are difficult to teach in the public education system, as you are quoted - the main bulk of SE children are the mild to moderate group - what does that say about the current public education system?

It is telling about your own personal education philosophy, when you state: ” They did their best.”
The education system did a better job on your child, because one parent was an educator. One of the major complaints from the SE parents, are children of educators, get the things they need and usually have all their children’s needs met, 100 % of the time, than parents who do not have an inside track.

I am sure that you did not meet with the same obstacles that parents who are not educators are face with.

I am sure no one told you, your kid is slow, or even nastier comments regarding parent ability. I am sure, that if one presented concerns regarding reading, writing or numeracy, that indicates a learning problem, no one suggested to you that it was a behaviour problem, or the child did it on purpose. I am sure that you never once had to turn to drastic measures, to get help for your child. I am sure that you never once had to go to the upper levels of the education system, to address issues of your child.

The system work for you, but it certainly does not work for the majority of the children. Again, if I had left it up to the school, my kid would have already failed a grade or two, and much further behind, than the other children.

The biggest impact at the school level, is the curriculum, teaching methods that are used currently have done the greatest harm in improving reading, writing and numeracy stats. Until the education system, start to address the inadequacies, it will continued to move at snail’s pace, a long with the myths, and misconceptions that the public education system love to promote.

That you have refused Malkin’s request is enough for me Mr. Little.  I understand completely why it’s impossible for you to comply with the proof she requests.

Choice is in the air sir, and you can’t stand it that parents are being helped along in their education re: the ploys used to stifle those choices.

The OISE survey is as much a tool of the public system as you are. Ontario deserves better and by the looks of the move by the TDSB to attract more families to their altetrnatives, even they’re way ahead of you.

When I was a trustee I established 2 alternatives in my ward and supported a dozen more in other wards. Choice is important to some but it must be totally contained within the public system under an elected board using certified federated teachers who are part of a collective agreement with the board. They must not be able to add foundation money or seek tuition. They must take all kids who want to go including special ed and ESL. They must not push out kids who do not achieve easily.

Choice inside and outside the public system is night and day. I may not approve all the choices in the public system. I oppose separation of kids by gender and race, but I support the right of a democratic board to make legal choices.

I pointed out the charts to Malkin, the evidence is there. If Korea has caught Canada in reading as the report shows between 2006 and 2009, it also says Canada did not slip back Korea shot ahead. Korea has been slashing their class sizes and it has really paid off for them. If we want to get back in sole posession of second place, we need to do the same.

Using my words of myopic, is not very becoming of an educator. I stay on the topic, because my child represents the typical LD child, and where the current public education system does not meet their education needs. I stay on the topic, because LD students are the barometer of the school, the canary of the school. The warning system, that if LD kids are doing poorly, the programs for the general student population are not effective programs. The reason is, the majority of LD students are in the regular classroom, and not in special education.

As Joanne has pointed out, it is not the educators at the school that are the problem, it is the Ministry guidelines and the bureaucracy of the wider system, that prevents the educators of the school, to provide the correct help for children, and are hindered by the education policies that are put out.
And speaking about education policies, are the unwritten rules, where it is seen as general policies by the staff at the board level, Policies, where there is pressure put on the school, to have all LD students placed in special education for math and LA, by grade 10, and the other core subjects in the applied stream. 

It is heart wrenching to see parents that have followed the dictates of their school and other officials over their children’s learning needs, trusting the public education system to provide and then tell them, their children do not have the reading, writing and numeracy skills to do academic work, and questionable skills in the applied stream. Even more so, for students who have never been identified formally, the parents wishes are ignored for their students to enter into the academic stream, based on subjective data as previous grades.

I have only met two teachers in my life time, who should never have received a teacher’s certificate. The rules within the rules, are mind boggling within the public education system,  and they should simply dropped it all, in favour of a shortened list, on what one can do and only can do.

At the moment, the latest crisis for the high school teachers, is that they have run out of their quota for paper. Bad news for the kids, if the teacher does not find another source, and that source being another teacher, who has not run out of their quota of paper.

Another rule, are academic students who require targeted tutoring on reading, writing issues are not allowed to take basic courses, or be tutored for specific help for the basics. Quite, the situation where my daughter is in the academic stream, is not allow to take basic courses that may help with basic writing issues, but still cannot qualify for SE services, unless it is approved at the board level. It puts her teachers in a position, where they may have to break some rules regarding what a high school does or does not do, to give her help that should have been received back in the lower grades.

Another common rule, is the keeping of student files at the board level, and where teachers cannot explore the file, to make better informed decisions regarding the student. Files that are kept at the board level, are files of students such as LD kids, whose main learning problems can be corrected for the most part, with no need of entering into SE classes, or downgrading the course curriculum. By keeping the files at the board level, it prevents teachers from doing their job, reaching the full potential of each and every child.
And Doug, you wonder why?  You should heed the words written on this site as other sites have done so, along with the stats that are telling the same story, but with numbers.

Nancy, not all of us think that anecdotes don’t belong on blogs.  Please keep telling us of your experiences—I appareciate them.
How I began to realize just how bad the public school system was when my children were little was mostly through talking with other mothers.
As a matter of fact (please correct if I’m wrong) SQE (formerly OQE) was originally formed by mothers talking to one another about their dissatisfaction with the public school system!
We need to keep talking!

Many educators agree we are creating LD with the curriculum the Ministry of Education flogs through the Literacy Secretariat-if you have never been taught and espouse the theory that it is a developmental milestone-a deeply flawed hypothesis-then children in grade 4 are lining up for SE..

It is very important for the well being of children that this stop and we reach 90% success between SK AND GRADE 3 TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ AND SPELL.
Doug,your rant is a pain-care about children and teaching properly in the early grades-the teachers in front of the kids care-they are misguided-your generalizations cater to SMOKE AND MIRROR STATS-If we analyze the way kids read today-they are partial decoders..and they can`t read and spell-ask the Universities-enough with we are x number in the world-
Want to fight about why boys are left behind?
Oh-OISE says-an author by the way-give them high interest readers-sure-AFTER-you teach them how to read and spell-I understand the same disastrous instruction is flogged for mathematics…

Anecdotal information is highly valuable and hits Doug’s philosophies where it hurts the most. It negates all of the so-called “experts” and myths that he likes to use to provoke folks here and over at Mended(where the teachers and RetDir. there aren’t buying what he’s peddling either).

Interesting how that works.

  On one hand we’re told we have one of the premier education systems in the world then we’re told that we require a massive increase in funding in order to be competitive.

On the issue of whether Ontario citizens want higher taxes and a massive increase in education funding that’s so abstract as to be meaningless.

On the issue of whether or not a group, foundation, individual is so ideological that their input is valueless I’d imagine we could dismiss just about everyone and every study using that argument.

I suspect sources supportive of one’s arguments are to be taken seriously and ones that aren’t are to be dismissed out of hand.  Funny how that works!

Does anyone believe any of the teacher unions are a good source for balanced and unbiased input on the education scene?  Should they, then, be dismissed out of hand?

Our education system is flaw, when they co-opt medical terms, and applied them when ever it suits the system. Development delays, are one of these words, that they should not be using in any way, unless they have documentation coming from the medical specialists.

In my own experiences and observations, medical terms adopted by the public education are often used in the context as a tool of shame. When parents hear development delay directed at their child, who they thought of being a normal typical child, the tone, the way it comes up - the parent feels shame, that somehow it is their fault, little Suzie is not learning.
Here is a link, to a series of short videos, that describes the shame process that takes place in our public education system every day.
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/Tour/c3c/index.htm

This is a topic that brings all the emotions up in me, Policy formulation, is based in part on the shame factor, and it is the teachers as well as the parents/children who have to bear the costs. If there is one thing, that has been made painfully clear to me, that policies are designed to reach a percentage of children and not all children. The use of development delay in the school, should be used only as a heads up to the school, that this child may in all likelihood experience reading problems in all or some aspect of reading. They should be doing the job, to provide the correct help for these children, but it is not done for many reasons, including using shame as part of their weapons to control children and their parents.

The only solution to solve the public education problems, are to provide as SQE is advocating, and many others is to provide the well researched-based reading and other subject programs, that have been proven to be effective, and reach the majority of students. Add choice,  in and out of the public education system, than it could be said that within 5 years, you would see the leap in achievement data, that would truly reflect a student population who are well verse on their basics, and can truly expressed the knowledge that has been learned.

I have seen that with my own child, where the leap forward was amazing, working on the basics at home. The good teachers know this, but from what they have told me, they do not get the support or the resources necessary to reach all students. And this goes back to teachers unions,  policy formation and how education is delivered.

The Dougs of the world, would rather we see the smoke and the mirrors as being the real reality of the public education system. Their reign will be soon over, and it is just when and not if any more,

Here is the part you seem to have a hard time with John. It is you, not me that is in the distict minority. I know you don’t feel it because around you or around here it feels like the majority but did you ever wonder if your views are majoriterian, why people are so slow to impliment them? Did you ever stop and think, as in the oise survey, maybe most people DO want more money spent on education to create smaller classes with more teachers. Maybe be are smart enough to see that if we are to meet international competition we need to feed our brain power more and more every year.

Jo-Anne, I find your comments very interesting.

Based on my personal experience so far I think that older teachers - let’s say over 40 or over 45 - would probably know how to teach using a phonetic approach and in a structured way with enough repetition so that the skills become automatic.

With younger teachers ... most of them don’t have a clue how to teach reading and writing.

What I’ve seen is let’s do a bit of simple reading looking at pictures, let’s once in a while say by the
way this letter stands for this sound.

Handwriting? As long as the letters the student writes vaguely resemble the printed letter, anything goes.
It doesn’t matter whether the students writes the letters in the correct way that is left to right and top to bottom.
It doesn’t matter how the student holds the pen.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the student can write in straight lines. For God’s sake, my son had a grade 1 English teacher who was having them write on unlined paper!
It doesn’t matter whether the spelling is correct or not.

Really, a lot of the young teachers while they may care for the students and may have chosen to be teachers out of a deep interest in children have no clue how to teach.
They think teaching is being nice and saying only positive things no matter what, presenting something that has some connection to the subject and then the students will figure it out by themselves.
Structure when presenting new material, precise feedback to correct errors, enough practice for the students to master the new skills - all these teaching skills are non-existent.

What is your experience Jo-Anne?
Would young teachers out of teacher’s college be able to teach reading and writing so that 90% of their students master them?
What do the teachers think?

Dear Europe,

I see the same symptoms as you do and understand from my field work the frustrations teachers feel because they are unprepared specifically for the teaching of Reading,Spelling and Handwriting.It is so tragic for the altruistic soul of most teachers.
Universities are no longer teaching teachers how to teach Reading because the myth that students learn to read and spell through exposure to literature is still the prevailing method.That is because when they threw out phonics they ASSUMED WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS-that learning to read resembled learning to speak and that children learn in spite of a taught process.
We now know that this was a flawed hypothesis and is completely erroneous.Empirical Research has proven the exact opposite.In all countries where students are not taught to read,spell and write they remain illiterate.Only 20% of the population is so gifted in linguistics naturally that they require no instruction-they resemble the musical proteges that play Mozart by ear-but are those students harmed by musical instruction in notes,scales and chords,naturally not-they simply improve further.
I see everything you describe in the field and it is very sad-and extremely harmful.
What is even more astonishing is the Reading Instruction recommendations from the Ministry of Education continuing to promote the growth of literacy through exposure.What is needed is explicit systematic instruction in phonemic awareness,phoneme grapheme correspondence(where children learn to hear and connect to the pictures the sounds make) and then allow them to learn to read and spell once that connection is made…
Naturally,I agree with you,letter formation must be taught-we need to learn through a trained teacher.
The Reading War in Ontario is being played out by the educrats and bureaucrats-it`s very sad for all concerned about children and that definitely includes teachers.
They have been brainwashed at University about the drill and kill phonics but they are so aware of the level of failure in their children that they open up like a flower when you teach them how to do it.