Likely we need to attend to both visions articulated above.
The basics are more than the traditional ones, though literacy and numeracy should still be at the hearts.
As for teachers as “change agents”? For many kids- too many- their lives are shaped for the better by an inspiring teacher.
So it is not a question either or and hasn’t been for the past 3-4 decades, it is how to maximize learning for all.
As for choice? Where possible offer choice though this is much more complex than many think and has an ethical dimension to it.

One small example is the push for specialty schools. How does one promote these yet also promote a spirit of democracy in a pluralistic multiethnic, multi faith society like ours?
And should these clash, which set of “values” takes precedence?

First as a parent, I agree with Malkin that teachers should not become change agents. Changing who? The students? The teachers? The outside world?  All three?  Tall order, and impossible even within a classroom. Change a few students possible, and that would be a full time job, considering the goals of independent learning, the child taking on the responsibility for learning, and the over used catch phase of authentic learning.

Over reaching pie-in-the-sky goals, without formulation of step by step goals to reach the pie-in-the-sky goals. Many of an educator and the educrats thought I was over reaching the pie-in-the-sky goal of opening up the doors for my child to enter into the field of forensics. But what they never did, is asked me what are the smaller goals to obtain my pie-in-the-sky goal. For the most part,very disappointing that as my youngest climbed the achievement ladder, no one really wanted to know the nuts and bolts, but more content to remain skeptics, and critics of my techniques at home.

As for the pie-in-the-sky goals of schools, and public education system, my goal for my child was a lot more realistic than the pie-in-the-sky goals of the public education system. One thing to state authentic learning, and it is another thing to state independent learning, and it is another thing to state creativity but without the how-tos, it is impossible to do. Impossible to do without knowing the true strengths and weaknesses of their students. Rather odd, when I was re-teaching at home the basics, using practice, practice and than more practice as my slogan, and a slogan that was once raise again yesterday to my youngest, while she was boasting about her 95 % in chemistry. The school board staff, was stressing creativity is what she needs. Becoming independent and learning on her own what she needs. Much like the videos of EdCamp Toronto, pie-in-the-sky goals without the how-tos to arrive at the goals. Lots of questions that begat questions, but none of the how-tos to make the pie-in-the-sky goals a reality.

No amount of twisting, and dancing on one’s head or having 50 teachers dancing on the head of a pin, is going to change students to turn on their learning, to where everyone becomes co-learners, without the how-tos to arrive at the goal of independent learning. Or for that matter, if it rests on the current pedagogy, education philosophies, and dogma of a public education system, that thinks they are the experts, in everything education.

“Where possible offer choice though this is much more complex than many think and has an ethical dimension to it.” Ethical, when choices are being made on the abstract of a student, rather than what is the reality of a student?  Unethical in my viewpoint, and leaves a student with dealing with the inequities of the knowledge gap on their own, without bothering to give each student the tools and skills to deal with the inequities of the realities. Pseudo-democracy, is what the students learned at the end of the day, and a rude awakening as adults.

To “Summerhill” for me. I agree with John. People tend to run to pedagogical extremes for some reason. Kids need to spend half their time, at some early ages 70% of their time on basics although basics do not have to be “drill and kill”.Leaps and bounds are being made by the “read aloud” efforts for example but some traditionalist seem to have no time for creative and self learning projects “too John Dewey” for them. Forty two years at this in elementary, secondary, college university trustee and union business have taught me that ‘silver bullets” usually miss their target. Blends are hat works.

I would never have a child of mine in a traditional school OR a ‘Summerhill”.

In Jihad vs McWorld, Ben Barber sets out his thesis that what we see across the world is the forces of US and western corporate capitalism (McWorld) in a death struggle with traditional communities defined by Jihad. Jihad stands in for all fundamentalist movements putting Wahabi Islam on the same side as Jewish west bank settlers, American Fundamentalist Christians, various small language and small culture (Tibet) collections against the juggernaut of western capitalist advance. We can see it when Indians fight KFC locating in India, small European nations struggling with the New Eurozone domination etc.

There is an instinct to retreat to tribe. I associate this with the Afrocentric school. It is similar to some American charters that recruit the “highly motivated” poor from anongst the rest of the poor, often they live in the same buildings and then claim a testing triumph. They are not real samples and they will find the faster they grow, the more water is in the wine.

They are “searching” for a high school. There are many highschools in the area that are 80% black. They don’t want one of those to be the Afrocentric HS. Why not it would be so easy? The reason is that the kids must ‘start fresh’ in a new place and not have the baggage of the former schools. It must be an established academic school. Oakwood Collegiate, their first choice rebelled even though half the kids are black. The white parents basically said this is our school and if you place this here we are out. The teachers all said “we won’t work in a new Afro centred school, we all want transfers out.

This is not the ML King integration view, this is the Malcolm X seperatist view. I don’t like it but the parents believe in it. I told them at a meeting. “It will work for the few parents that choose to use it but it is not a solution to black underachievement since 95% of black kids will not be in the school. Even if it spreads it will only polarize the community and the remaining schools will get worse.

I will be around in ten years I hope to say “I told you so.”

Doug, novel approach is less focus on where they come from, who they are, and what they are not, and pay much attention to their well being in cognitive and learning achievement. After all, children no matter who they are, have the same DNA as other children, less the 1 percent of DNA difference that makes each one of us unique, will go a longer way than separating into our cultural tribes. That I do agree with you, children need to learn the cultural and values that differs across gender, race, religion, income, in order to build tolerance and understanding of one another. Can’t do that, when everyone has the same label, with no diversity in the school.

Now how about a little diversity in teaching methods and instruction in today’s schools, instead of having teachers becoming acrobats and learning to dance on a head of a pin.

And no one ever stated that drills have to be the drill and kill type. Although, I have to wonder about the educrats, who think 10 practice problems is enough to have it kicked upstairs into permanent learning. The research states otherwise, but my own observations, practice practice and than some more practice ensures a student ready to do the next level with ease, as well as preparing a student for independent learning on their own.

The notion that they are social engineers is part of the air they breathe at the faculties of education and woven into every line of the books they read and is implicit in most mainstream media news stories.

How can they think otherwise?  Even the best of minds can be and are reduced to abject conformity in
this thin, cold air.

@ Mr. Little:

“Traditional” is in the eye of the beholder.

Ideology-driven, social-engineering, pedagogically chaotic and constantly changing curricula, constant tampering, political gamesmanship; these have all become “traditional” especially so since the Hall-Dennis era. 

Recommended reading for all is “So Little for the Mind” by the late Hilda Neatby.  She neatly analyzed the already-disastrous direction of public education all across the country.

One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.

Today’s science is tomorrow’s witchcraft.

I read “So Little for the Mind” by neatby maybe 30 years ago. I have no problem with it. Many progressives support it.

If we didn’t have social engineering we would all still be in caves.

Social engineering hmmm get rid of racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, teach children to be non-violent, to cooperate and share, love thy neighbour, that kind of stuff. I’m for it.

Social engineering, the kind that is practiced by a government, and their departments, and in this case the public education system, does not teach tolerance. As for final outcomes, racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and others are increasing in the final outcomes at the schools. Of course without immediate consequences, what does one expect.

I think there would be a pretty strong agreement that schools should be involved in “social engineering” as I described it above. The schools have the role to teach tolerance and sharing as one of its prime functions.

It is a mini society of the one we are all trying to improve. This is where they learn that sharing is good and being greedy is bad.

Nancy,

Although intolerance, greed, sexism, etc is on the rise, that does not necessarily indicate that schools should not be engaged in trying to counteract these trends.  It may simply indicate that schools are not doing a good job in this area.  You have long stressed that schools are not doing a good job teaching reading.  By your standards, then, should schools stop teaching reading?

If schools do not at least try to teach tolerance, acceptance and inclusion, where would students get their cues from?  Media? Music? Sports stars? the home?  I would posit that schools are actually doing a decent job of trying to counteract these strong forces - especially the message coming from the home.

Great link-this is what I believe in,what all great educators believe in and what anyone in this business of education should be focused on.

http://principalj.blogspot.com/2011/10/believe-that-every-child-can-learn.html

When the elephants from the Unions or administration join in,this message is lost and working conditions,salaries,time off ,become the obsession,the whole focus has to be child centric,that`s what you get paid for!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-about-better-parents.html?_r=3&ref=thomaslfriedman

The biggest cliche in education is that “every child can learn”. Of course race, gender class etc should not hold children back but poverty does hold children back whatever their race gender orientation or whatever. It is profoundly naive to think otherwise. The slogan should read “all children can learn under ideal conditions.”

I had a subscriber ask me “Doug, the data clearly shows that the poor have a great deal of difficulty learning but what is it about being poor that makes it so difficult?” I pointed him to the work of David Berliner at Arizona State who describes in minute detail the data on the poor and schools.

Low birth weight, poor nutrition, need to glasses, need for dental help, poor role models, inadequate place to study, no books/newspapers in the home, constant chaos, moving too often, too many days lost with illness, falling behind on summer and holiday breaks, and the list goes on and on.

Thanks for sharing the video link, Malkin!

“I think there would be a pretty strong agreement that schools should be involved in “social engineering” as I described it above. The schools have the role to teach tolerance and sharing as one of its prime functions. “

Get out of town Doug. I can tell you that parents would be overjoyed at having to expose their kids to less social engineering in our schools. 

Tolerance? Sharing? Taught first at HOME and supported by the school environment NOT the other way around.

Jo-Anne,

Looks like Newt Gingrich has solved the union problem for you! 

http://www.ology.com/politics/newt-gingrich-thinks-laws-preventing-child-labor-are-truly-stupid

Doug, classism at its best, as well as a clear bias as well. Could introduced to you a lot of middle-income homes, with the same type of indicators, as well as more well to do homes, with the same type of indicators. Check out children services, and your indicators, than why isn’t the homes being raided by children services, for neglect? 

Moving too often?  Not very often considering the price of rent these days, and other factors that makes it very difficult to move. I am sure no one,  would be able to live up to Beliner’s standards, or the standards of what a home should be for kids, but really implying that people who are low-income have less brain cells than their counterparts in other income groups?  Every child is capable of learning, and do so each and every day. Unfortunately, it may not be the stuff that a school would like them to learn or may not at all be measured or desired. In fact, every adult learns everyday, or otherwise as adults one will never learn how to avoid the pitfalls and snags of life.

But schooling is a different type of learning, and often kids are told in so many little ways that they are too dumb. It would be a better world, if teachers took notice, that all children can learn regardless of their situations.

“Mrs. McDevitt, my 5th grade teacher, who never punished me for not having my homework done (because I was babysitting my 3 younger sibblings), but let me come into her classroom early to get it done. I never needed help, just a quiet place to do it without one of the little ones coloring on it.
*Mr. Johnson, my 7th grade math teacher who pushed me to move into 8th Grade Algebra early when I never thought I was capable of it. (I will also never forget when my name was drawn in assembly for a reading contest and I got to shave half of his beard off!)”

The above teachers showed the student he care about him in a very personal way, that he was quite capable of learning by providing him the tools and space.  The teachers did not provide an excuse for him to slack off, but a reason to learn. Internal motivation is known for the spark in learning, and is quite powerful for students, compared to external motivation cues. By the way, you want to know the stats how many middle-class students go without breakfast, as well as the other stats dealing with their diet, Doug? Not a pretty picture.

I only wish their was more teachers pushing the internal buttons of children, to motivate them, rather than using the external buttons of motivation.
False praise, rather than the bother to go and do this - “If we as adults don’t see the potential in every child and truly believe that every child can learn, then how can we expect them to have hope and see the potential in themselves? We have to look at them and see what we want them to become.”
http://principalj.blogspot.com/2011/10/believe-that-every-child-can-learn.html

The Dougs of the world, truly do not believe that all children can learn, just the minority. The problem is their version of learning,is exactly the same for each and every child, and the potential for each child is exactly the same. They are blind to see the potential of any child, the individual differences of a student, to truly see what they should become.

Blinded by their own biases.

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-Berliner-NON-SCHOOL.pdf

The question Nancy is not whether some middle class families display some of these characteristics but that the poor are limited by the compounding of many of these characteristics to the point that their school progress is profoundly limited.

I believe if we ask parents whether they want tolerance, sharing, anti-racism etc taught in school whether the parents like it or not, I believe we would get a resounding mandate.

I believe the collective value system of the school supercedes the values of the family. When the family is out of step, it is the school and society that need to step in.

Looks like Newt Gingrich has solved the union problem for you! 

We can always count on Newt to go that one step beyond and make conservatism look ridiculous.

Who is the idiot that wanted to get the kids out of the mines and mills anyway?

You seem to be falling into a false dichotomy. You seem to think that non-traditional conference attendees favour only non-traditional teaching, and vice versa. The whole point of an un-conference is that it is a much more efficient means of sharing best practices than the “traditional” broadcast based conference. You might want to choose these teachers for the simple reason that these teachers care.

My take on EdCampTO is here:
http://www.teachscience.net/2011/10/22/my-meandering-thoughts-on-edcamp-toronto/

haha!  Doug, your back!  Welcome…  Must say that I missed you and your blogs—you sure liven things up!
How long do you think you’ll last this time?
Just kiddin—I can get pretty cranky sometimes…

You guys need a sparing partner. Too much agreement makes you lazy. Opposition allows you to sharpen your arguments.

I am the type you face when you try to get your ideas into legislation.

@ Nancy
To say that poverty does hold children back is not classism. Stress inhibits learning, and kids in lower socieconomic circumstances face considerably greater stress. Though all kids may, innately, have the same ability to learn regardles of class, those in lower socioeconomic situations live with extrinsic, stress-induced barriers to learning. Ignoring these factors only allows them to persist.
And you know what? I learned that at EdCampTO…

Ed, try to learned having an undiagnosed learning disability, in a noisy classroom, incorrect instruction methods, and repeat it every day for three long years without having the kid absolutely hate school with a passion, sleep walking, terrible temper tantrums, and learning each and every day the repeated message, I am dumb in so many ways. Now try to correct it without having any private services the one could go to for help, with little support from a school, except for a family doctor who read the riot act to the school.

If anything, the public education at its heart has a systemic fault line, that causes needless and negative stress unto the children. It was my child I was describing above, but I am not an isolated case, and she belongs to the majority in any primary and junior classroom, who are not the natural book learners.

As well, each and every home has intrinsic stress-induced barriers of many different measures. Over 20 years ago, I often wonder why the kids came to my humble abode to hang out, instead of their fancy homes, with their BMWs and other fancy autos. I had food in the fridge. It click in for me, that having a healthy income, does not mean that one is stress-free.

All children, including the ones who are born with dyslexia, have stress-induced barriers that impedes their learning. Not all stress is negative, and stress in itself plays a positive role in development. What did I do in part to help my child, I enrolled her in a very stressful competitive environment, the swim team. It work, very well to bring in a new track in her mind, I can do attitude after spending a nightmare year # 1 in grade 1. Did not help with the sleep walking, but than again sleepwalking only occurred when school was open, and not on the holidays and the summer time.

If anything, it is classism, when interpretations are being made by others of a professional class, of an income group, especially when one has never visit the home environment. Worse yet, when much of the literature being drawn from is from the poverty theory, that originates from data taken from third world countries. The theory has become two, one for the developing countries and the other one for the industrialized countries. Glad to see the theory is expanding and changing to reflect the reality, and not so much the interpretations of the professional class, imposing their views which might not be what the person is experiencing at all.

What never crosses the minds of those who educate and work in the public education system, is the question, the stress that is imposed unto the students, due to teaching practices and policies. Or the harm being done to students’ long term futures. What kind of harm is done when students do not receive timely education prevention in the 3 Rs?  What kind of harm is done, if intervention takes place 3 years after? What kind of harm is done, using ineffective interventions? 

Take a look, at the slop that is passed for LD knowledge on any public education site. Or for that matter any other disorder, and asked yourself if it would not induce stress for all stakeholders, in a school environment. Perhaps not classism in its true sense, but the prevailing attitudes and biases held by the public education system, to exclude according to income, when it comes to students who are in need of education services. Reverse classism??

Again, I appreciate you including a link to the video created as an overview of our EdCamp Toronto event. I have to say, however, that I’m still scratching my head a little at the way you framed the event.

You seem to be indicating (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the fact that educators, parents, and community members gathered on their own time and at their own expense to spend the day talking about what matters to them in education and schooling supports your agenda for school choice. In particular, you have made a blanket judgement that these are not the type of folks you want in your child’s classroom.

I just wanted to make a couple of points in that regard. I have spent close to 30 years teaching in the public education system and I have met many teachers that I would fight for my own children NOT to have. I’m not alone in this, I’m sure.

But when I meet up with teachers that care so much about what they do that it hurts, I always think to myself, “I hope that my children get to experience someone like you at some point in their educational journey”.

EdCamp was borne out of a desire to be included in the official conversations about education, and it was borne out of a desire to connect with other educators, parents and community members who share the desire to raise their voices. EdCamp is not about changing the world; it’s about changing the system so that everyone that comes through the doors of the schoolhouse has an equal chance to succeed.

The folks that came on that Saturday morning were ready for that conversation. The educators present are teachers and administrators who are already spending lots of time in professional learning; they are already well-versed in the need to ensure that students have the basics that will allow them to be successful. But they are also people who understand at a very visceral level that there is more that schools can be doing to support learning.

School is an agency of change. Isn’t that what learning is all about? As such, teachers, parents and anyone who seeks a voice can rightly consider themselves change agents. In fact, if we don’t see ourselves that way, we run the risk of maintaining the status quo…and we know that’s no longer a viable option.

So, you’ll see EdCamp participants at the Ministry-mandated professional development sessions about reading, writing and math. That’s part of our job, and now part of our working day.

But, you’ll also see them at People for Education events, SQE conferences, Unplug’d weekends, “Everybody’s A Teacher” unconferences…all on their own time and at a cost to them.

EdCamp is not a socialist plot to assume the role that parents are meant to play in their child’s development. Instead, its a way of getting at the types of conversations that aren’t part of traditional professional development agendae.

In my mind, my children would be very fortunate to spend a year or two with this type of passionate and skilled professional.

Thanks, Stephen, for your tempered response to what you must have seen as my unwarranted attack on well-intentioned and selfless activities. What I was trying to say, and obviously I needed to say it more clearly, is that there is a widespread assumption that teachers are already teaching the 3Rs just fine, and so they are justified in working on how to teach other things better. I disagree. In my opinion, the teaching of the 3Rs (and I mean that to include science and music and so forth) is executed - on average - rather poorly, and so priority should be given to sessions that allow teachers to hone these priority areas, as well as pointers on such things as classroom control and communicating with parents. An example would be the techniques laid out in Doug Lemov’s stunning book “Teach Like a Champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college”. I have an awesome video (“The Polished Stones”) that shows how the Japanese hone their presentation of every lesson - meeting every day to talk about how they present each concept, what worked for them, how to tweak the wording, attention to every tiny detail. It’s really inspiring. I would be happy to send you this video (VHS) if you would be interested. If I had to choose between a teacher who was passionate and a teacher who was a superb technician, I would choose the latter for my children.

Hi Malkin!

I don’t think that we can ever assume that we are doing things just fine. A look at literacy and numeracy scores in Ontario, for an example, would indicate (if you want to use this as an indication) that thousands and thousands of students still struggle with what you call the 3R’s (the person that coined the term obviously needed some help with spelling).

It’s becoming clear that our current approaches to teaching and learning may not and may never meet the needs of these students. This is, obviously, what is behind the robust and intense inservice programs that all school boards in the province now have. Teachers, through the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (!) have been involved in professional learning around “high yield” strategies for years now, with minimal progress.

I know that there are many here who would say, “well, we’re just not teaching teachers the right way to teach. if only they were using ___” 

There are many of us who understand that there are other things about school that need to be changed if we are going to be able to effectively meet the needs of all students that come through our doors. Technique is important. In fact, professional skill is essential.

But what the people who gathered in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Quinte, Edmonton and many other centres around North America are anxious to talk about are some of the ways that we can re-imagine the way that we think about school, its role in a changing world: what counts as literacy; how do we keep kids in school without legislating their presence; how do we keep good teachers in the profession; what is the role of technology in all of this, and how can it be used effectively.

I know that we will never be able to declare that “we’ve got this whole teaching thing down”. The perfect teacher is an elusive sort of ideal. The perfect school is probably just as elusive. What I’m excited about, howver, is the fact that there are people around (the folks that hang out here, included) that are passionate about striving for that.

It involves discovering promising practices for struggling students, to be sure. It involves making our schools and classrooms welcoming places for all students and not just those who would do well in spite of what we do in school.

But the conversation also needs to be about the things about our schools that stand in the way of putting these practices into effect. And there are many of them.

I’ve learned through the EdCamp movement that there are plenty of people who are willing and able to recognize that there are many balls in the air when it comes to talking about school quality and effectiveness. And there are many who are willing to try to juggle them all.

As John Myers said at the very begining of this comment stream: there is need and room for both types of conversation.

An interesting exchange,Stephen,I am not working for the Ministry nor am I working for the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat so I won`t hold back.
The workshops are useless,they are a bloated bureaucracy and they are not honouring the compelling empirical research that all kids need phonological awareness training,new profound research that when delievered to a child in Grade one or two that isn`t learning or hasn`t learned in grade 3,4 5 6 etc…that when tested for weak phonological awareness,different than phonics,delivering this science is akin to a student walking in the desert and running into an oasis.
Why is it that empirical research is ignored?
Because I talk to school board heavy weights regularly in my line of work,they sometimes confess they can`t understand why the Ministry is not ‘all over this”,yes,Directors of curriculum and Instruction as well as psychologists and speech pathologists.They are not empowered by this body,after all they are people who came through the system,they bring their attitude,not the Science of Reading to us.
This laissez faire attitude IS A FORM OF EDUCATIONAL CHILD ABUSE.
You can call a colleague of Dr.Stanovich,Dr.Linda Siegel on this,just try to get people caring about kids rather than their blessed opinion.
I am in Sioux Look Out this week training many more teachers who teach First Nations children,the school board that is publicly funded in the area does no better with the kids than on reserve schools,but our plan to have 90% of kids reading and spelling by Grade 3 through explicit research based instruction and trained teachers ,following Jean Chall`s confirmed research and 1,000 others that the gang refuses to hear, that kids in K-3 need to learn to read,spell and write in order to learn curriculum from grade 4 and up,I recommended Jump Math to them and that`s working too,is happening here,next year we certify a literacy coach for each school.
Change instruction and see what happens,oh I forgot,the Ministry won`t allow it.

“But what the people who gathered in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Quinte, Edmonton and many other centres around North America are anxious to talk about are some of the ways that we can re-imagine the way that we think about school, its role in a changing world: what counts as literacy; how do we keep kids in school without legislating their presence; how do we keep good teachers in the profession; what is the role of technology in all of this, and how can it be used effectively.”

Metaphysics stances, without the requirement of concrete action based on the reality?  One can be as passionate, and dedicated to a cause, rooting out the things that get in the way of good teaching, but without acknowledging the the root causes of students’ realities, actions becomes the window dressings, to masked the root causes to reproduced under the cover of darkness.

Stephen, I have a bee in my bonnet this morning, hearing and reading two very different topics in education. One on TV and the other arrived in my e-mail box. Both shared a trait that the problems lie not with the teaching practices, or the training of our educators, but with the deficiencies of the students, and their families.

“It involves discovering promising practices for struggling students, to be sure. It involves making our schools and classrooms welcoming places for all students and not just those who would do well in spite of what we do in school.”

Those who do well in school, from the very beginning are students who have excellent memory processes in the first place. The students with excellent memory processes, don’t do so well in high school, if the students have not been taught to write notes, studying skills, summarization techniques and other foundation knowledge, The students who have struggled from the beginning in school, have poorer memory processes, as well as other lesser skills in the 3 Rs, continued to struggled to maintain a decent average throughout school. Both groups would benefit on the reintroduction of being taught explicitly how to write notes, to studying skills, summarization, to grammar and other missing elements of the essential foundational knowledge, since the the late 1970s.

Peeved, because it treats children as though they are little adults, needing little tweaks here and there in their knowledge gaps, and not as children who need a solid foundation in the 3 Rs, to prevent the knowledge gaps. Magically thinking?  Metaphysics thinking? I rather have a teacher who is a budding technician, than a teacher with passion. My child had a budding technician for a teacher in grade 4, who became enthused on the rapid progress of my child, using explicit instruction, that became the norm for teaching the whole class. But more importantly, the teacher discovered the root causes of low achievement, the missing elements of the solid foundation in the 3 Rs, and why the elements are missing in today’s schools. Her words still ringed in my ears today, “Whatever you do, do not stopped what you are doing at home, and never leave it in the hands of the school, no matter how difficult it is.” Difficult, because I lacked the knowledge at that stage, but not the solid foundation of the 3 Rs, which help me to sort out the new knowledge, and whether it was relevant to the situation at hand. Peeved, you bet when it comes to a public education system, that is loath to see the reality, and eager to educate to a vision of what a student should be, and not what a student is.

I would rather have a teacher who is passionate about their work because I know from experience that engagement and passion…on the part of teachers and students…is what really ignites learning that lasts. And I will take that to the bank.

Nancy, everything that you have said makes sense to me, and some of it resonates very deeply. But I don’t think that passion and professional knowledge/practice are mutually exclusive.

If they were, I would tend to agree that the accomplished practitioner would be the more desirable entity!

Enough with the false dichotomies!

As Stephen notes, competence and passion ought to go together.

True John, but why is the competence lacking? Or competence masked by the passion?  Just wondering, spent another parent-teacher interviews seeking out the competence, in order to figure out what I could do at home. Difficult at the high school level, and much easier for parents to determine the problems at the grade school level. But at the very least, I had confirmation on what I judge to be a poor science textbook, lacking for the connections to the laws and theories connecting them to the problems. Know any good high school physics books that does a good job of connecting the facts? Somehow, I don’t think tutorial is going to cut it, but I will try to force the issue at home, without trying to start WWIII.

That said, I should have listen to my instincts a month ago, and just did what I did in the past - reconfigured the physics textbook to my youngest preferences. I was good tonight, I could have argued about the methods being taught regarding math in physics. My youngest is loosing marks for doing the math in physics exactly in the same way as in math class. I only retreated, because my knowledge on basic physics is weak, and I probably be run down by a freight train. But I did maintain my ground, and walk out of that meeting, with a plan for home. Even though my child is one of the few that is passing physics, she needs a further grounding on the foundations of physics, before the mid-terms. That we both agree upon, and left on good terms. He too believes in practice, practice and than some more practice. Where we disagree upon, practice first than make the connections. I say connections first, than the practice and more practice.

I wish I have had my mafia LD book, that would have told me on the whys based on the science, why my child needs the connections, before practice commences. He was being very passionate on practice tonight, when I wanted him to understand why practice comes after the connections for my child. He promised,  at tutorial, he would have the time to make the connections of the knowledge to all the physics problems that are assigned for homework when she arrives at tutorial.

False dichotomy?

http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf

To Nancy
- yes I want teachers to have both competence and passion.

To Jo-Anne
Even though the report is American some of it applies here. More to the point it is irrelevant to my point.

Okay John,but the insistence on my part as well as SQE that this work begin to be available and recognized for the 40 percent who need it in all schools and in communities like inner city schools and First Nations where it`s 60 percent,  this discussion should take place over sentiment and passion is the point I want to make…

John, Joanne’s link is to the point on the competence part. Or at the very least, the primary teachers should processed, but not too many have, under the current training practices. In the later grades, it becomes a comprehension problem as the problem, masking the core weaknesses in decoding unknown words. It even becomes a bigger headache for high school teachers, to determined solutions around the comprehension levels of students, without having the deeper knowledge of the foundation of the 3 Rs, that is missing in the training of teachers.

Passion and competence should go together, as two peas in a pod, but the question is what quantities?  That can only be determined on the individual or students and what they have or do not have.

I agree with Nancy’s last sentence wholeheartedly!

Curriculum and the strategies used within the context of the classroom can never be just handed to teachers. They are always mediated, I believe, by the relationship between teacher and student, where the student is in their development, resources avaialable and, yes, the knowledge of the teacher.

A passionate teacher, in my opinion, is one that is aware of this important dynamic and is able to negotiate this complex terrain. Complex, in large part, due to the fact that each student could be at a different developmental stage.

A passionate teacher (and perhaps we need a better word!) is one that can see and appreciate knowledge gaps that they have and take it upon themselves to close that gap.

A passionate and effective teacher will ask questions about the complexity and, as a professional, will be able to make critical decisions on how to proceed, even if this means going beyond what may be considered “best practice” (another elusive concept!)

I know it may sound “pie-in-the-sky”, but this has been my experience with the teachers that I have worked with. We’re not all like this, but many are!

Stephen has a point that both
preservice and inservice professional learning
are not as good as they need to be
too many
- drive by workshops
- powerpoint(less) one-way presentations with
little direct application to real classrooms and/or no chance for participants to ask the key questions, not just to the speaker but to each other?

For example, differentiated instruction (DI) is a current FOM (flavour of the month) all over North America.
How many workshops on DI actually model what it is supposed to look like?
This is not a new phenomenon.
I went to a workshop three decades ago in which the presenter lectured us for an hour on differentiating learning.