RSS Feed

  1. Parent Voice, choice and academies

    May 11, 2016 by Tunya

    Academies and Parent Voice Are Both Good Social Policies In Education

    The UK is following good advice regarding schools being accountable to the Ministry, thereby bypassing the self-interests that dominate schooling. Why this is happening is not peculiar to the UK alone. It is in other Western countries (Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand) that schools have become the captives of self-interests and a dominating political/philosophical agenda generally called “progressive”.

    This post correctly identifies that parents generally have a different agenda for schools: “For progressivism to become a mass phenomenon, most ordinary parents had to be pushed out of educational decision making, because the vast majority of them stubbornly clung to conservative notions about hard work, discipline and knowledge acquisition.”

    Again, I say, this has been the common experience in the aforementioned Western nations. In the USA the response has been the gradual growth of alternative models such as charter schools, vouchers and education savings accounts. But, the opposition is vehement because vested interests are not primarily in the field for the best interests of the child.

    Government is well advised when it pays attention to the academic results the academisation model delivers. Here is a quote that supports the return of voice and choice to parents from Berkeley Law professor emeritus John E. Coons, 2002:

    > "There are a lot of benign effects of school choice but, for me, choice is family policy. It is one of the most important things we could possibly do as therapy for the institution of the family, for which we have no substitute. The relationship between the parent and child is very damaged if the parent loses all authority over the child for six hours a day, five days a week, and over the content that is put into the child's mind."

    > "What must it be like for people who have raised their children until they're five years old, and suddenly, in this most important decision about their education, they have no say at all? They're stripped of their sovereignty over their child."

    > "And what must it be like for the child who finds that his parents don't have any power to help him out if he doesn't like the school?”

    > "It's a shame that there are no social science studies on the effect of choicelessness on the family. If you are stripped of power—kept out of the decision-making loop—you are likely to experience degeneration of your own capacity to be effective, because you have nothing to do. If you don't have any responsibilities, you get flabby.”

    To Anthony Radice I want to say — What a profound post this is. I hope you pass it on to the powers that be in the Ministry and Prime Minister’s office.

     

    [comment sent to Anthony Radice, The Traditional Teacher on topic of how parent voice was pushed out for progressivism to spread, and how Academies in UK should return more local voice as opposed to establishment, unions, ed faculties, local boadrs, etc. https://thetraditionalteacher.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/the-ideas-behind-forced-academisation/comment-page-1/#comment-842 ]

    Category Education Reform, GOOD NEWS, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments

  2. inquiry into school board “corruption” ?

    May 5, 2016 by Tunya

    Inquiry At The Highest Level Called For

    It’s not good enough for the Ministry of Education to probe into York School District’s selection and hiring process. The matter as exposed — a superintendent of public schools obtaining an extraordinary hiring package — should be at the level of government itself. Notably, what should be examined is whether the school board system is appropriate for current needs and whether recurring problems in other boards as well are signaling a system which has outgrown its usefulness. The economic wastage and susceptibility to corruption keep popping up in other jurisdictions as well.

    Since the education of the young is the mission of the enterprise this should be the primary test against which these matters should be judged. Is there harm to children enrolled in this style of education delivery?

    Charles Pascal, a professor in the education faculty, University of Toronto and a former deputy minister, said the troubles in York “are a connection to the larger problem of governance of school boards”.

    “there is something unusual going on at that board,” he said in response to the Star stories. Maybe they are not that unusual, but par for the course. We should be worried.

    We read about a “culture of fear”, that some senior staff are leaving and that fear of retribution chills public discourse in York district. It should be examined if these kinds of behaviors taint other public education systems.

    I have one further point to add, not as yet mentioned (I think) and that is respect for the parent role in this school district. I was very disturbed that during the last primary teachers’ strike report cards were not completed at year-end. These progress reports are part of the “contract” between parents and government schools and in the School Act. How are parents to know if they’ve made a proper decision to enrol their child in a particular school?

    A news story at the time reported: “The report card is important to parents and students — it reflects student achievement during the year. The marks, learning skills and comments provide valuable information about student progress,” director of education J. Philip Parappally said.” As a senior executive of the board he should have been involved in an effort to have these declared as essential services by the Labor Relations Board. Was “attendance” still being taken by the teachers during this strike period? These are serious concerns for parents and a superintendent needs to back up parents in their role in education.

    A full inquiry at the highest level of the school board system — with York Region District School Board being Exhibit #1— is called for.

     

     [to SQE 05 May http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/the-duke-of-york ]

    Category Absurdities, Malpractice, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments

  3. bystanders no more — Education reformers

    May 2, 2016 by Tunya

    We Need A Movement — Bystanders No More In Education’s Downfall

    As we join others in this Education Consumers Clearinghouse blog in showing our dismay about education systems’ dysfunctions we must also recognize that we stand judged. I’m as guilty as anyone for inaction, helplessness, sense of defeat and a strong desire to retreat entirely from the fray.

    Robin, who runs the blog — Invisible Serfs Collar — from which we have been reading, says her aim is to inform, not advise. By directing “sunlight” on these looming and menacing “transformations” in education she feels that that “is the best disinfectant I can think of”. After years of posting these alarms the latest is about psychological reshifting from natural biological imperatives toward anticipatory (preemptive) behaviors acquired through schooling practices such as group (collective) work and collaboration — all while the race continues toward greater use of data-gathering, robotics and artificial intelligence in “education” of the young (more like training).

    William feels duty-bound to bring forth warnings such as Robin’s to our attention — “our ‘educational leaders’ do not want children to learn how to read, lest they select texts that are not designed to create the new society.”

    Martin and Will bemoan the fact that schools are refusing to teach reading — comments seeming more like “shrugs”, “that’s the way it is”, “what can be done about it, anyway?” — rather than any call to action.

    Deborah, ever active as columnist and local politician, writes about rescuing her son from schooling disaster and informs us that her district has just added a third “behavior skills” containment center — my guess, more for avoiding embarrassing dropout figures than real help.

    My own response to this conversation — also helplessness and utter dismay that the dangers foreseen and forecast are not being taken seriously or counteracted. BUT, I can add two more sad, related bits of bad news:

    – Homeschooling is being used in Indiana as a punishment and way to push-out difficult students to avoid dropouts and “expelled” figures and perversely, to boost test scores by removing poor performers. The homeschooled students are then counted as “transfers” and not losses or a black mark to the system. — http://www.educationviews.org/districts-homeschooling-punish-students/

    – There is to be in the next few years a massive world campaign to promote teaching of reading to children in developing countries. The work has been done — needs-assessment tools have been field-tested — protocols for community involvement have been mapped out, etc. What remains is for the Ministries of Education of the developing nations to then adopt the methods for implementing the reading programs. BUT, the literature involved already foresees a problem — “The reading ‘wars’ are alive and well in many low-income countries, often miring ministries of education and teaching centers in seemingly endless debates between the ‘whole-language’ and ‘phonics-based’ approaches.” (pg 11 of 1st edition , 2009, EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment)

    My Question: Do we continue to agonize and bringing forth our outrages? Or, is there more that can be done? It’s not really bystander apathy that is displayed here but — even as people capable in our own little worlds — nonetheless in the world of education we are overwhelmed by a juggernaut that enfeebles us. Any good news? Any ideas for action?

    Category Education Reform, Malpractice, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments

  4. Textbooks No More — Bad news

    April 30, 2016 by Tunya

    Institutional Memory For Education Reformers Sadly Lacking

    This post on textbooks in schools, or the lack thereof, illustrates just how handicapping it is not to have informed discussions about education issues. Going back to previous discussions 6 years ago it’s interesting to note how valuable it is to have context and a wide-range of views expressed.

    The education system has its institutional memory to advance its positions. The teacher unions have institutional memory to advance their benefits and political agendas. Parents and public and taxpayers simply do not engage very effectively in public discourse because there is little by way of background on which to lean on for facts and figures and to advance reform. This is where Society for Quality Education, through its blog, has been so helpful. It provides both a forum for discussion and a backup archive from which to search for issues of the past. Long may we enjoy this excellent service!

    Now, to the matter at hand: textbooks.

    1 I do know that home educators are great at using textbooks — be they old, used (even ancient) textbooks for their studies. We do know that home educated students generally do very well in education whether it’s on standardized tests or college and university.

    2 In the commentary brought forward from 2010 this gem pops up from a post by TDSBNW on 06/07 — “Unfortunately, pseudo-science is the name of the game in education, and always has been.” So, even if the latest, best, and compelling research shows up that textbooks are definitely superior to the mish-mash now being used the question arises: Would the education system bow to evidence? This seems to be the continuing refrain informing current education debates and adding to the polarization — on one side we see parents and some reformers pressing for evidence-based standard procedures and on the other hand we see an education system steadfastly resistant to that position in favor of methods largely based on subjective beliefs, fads and politics versus hard facts. What will it take to shift to more objective standards?

    3 Of course, textbooks, by themselves are not the issue alone. It’s the credibility of the textbook that’s also important. Here is an oft-quoted story about Dr Suess:

    “That damned ‘Cat in the Hat’ . . . I did it for a textbook house and they sent me a word list. That was due to the Dewey revolt in the Twenties, in which they threw out phonic reading and went to word recognition . . . I think killing phonics was one of the greatest causes of illiteracy in the country . . . there were two hundred and twenty-three words to use in this book . . . I read the list three times and I almost went out of my head. I said, I’ll read it once more and if I can find two words that rhyme that’ll be the title of my book . . . I found ‘cat’ and ‘hat’ and I said, ‘The title will be ‘The Cat in the Hat.’”

    That dismaying experience with the whole-word, look-say, word recognition movement and his first “Cat” book (1957) was reported in 1981 in “Arizona” magazine. When Dr Seuss fully grasped the situation he then afterwards became known as a strong champion of phonics.

    The Internet just cannot replace textbooks as long as they’re credible and students can read !

    [To SQE 20160430 http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/gone-by-the-book]

    Category Absurdities, Book Reviews, Education Reform, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments

  5. Crazy-making, brain-scrambling — intentional?

    April 19, 2016 by Tunya

     

    [There was a time when people started challenging the habit (technique) of educators to mystify.  Mystification was identified as an obstacle standing in the way of parents trying to understand what was going on in education.  And, a barrier to their meaningful participation in consultation and decision-making.  There was an inkling of understanding.  Nonetheless, parents still continue to be mystified, and driven "crazy" by ongoing system-led changes to education.  To stretch the concern further, here is my theory — this confusion is a deliberate way not only to keep parents at bay and out of the picture while "transformation" of education proceeds but is also a means, via "discovery" methods and other confusing means, to weaken the foundation of early "primary" and "elementary" education altogether rather than to ensure it's strength? This goes back over a 100 years when John Dewey enunciated, and started the slide down the rabbit-hole, as he proclaimed that foundation-building of skills in primary education was a "fetish", a "perversion" — that is, a fixation and not a necessary building block of learning?     My comment to SQE about a government sanctioned communiqué to parents about reading in Ontario — Bats in their Belfries  http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/bats-in-their-belfries ]

    Crazy-Making Education Reform

    Yet another education absurdity is brought forward for our attention — avoiding letter-sound rules in the teaching of beginning reading.

    The flyer — The Facts on Education: How Children Learn to Read – http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/cea-2011-foe-learn-read.pdf — is such a mish-mash ! People who know the field rather well find a number of inconsistencies, omissions and ambiguities, which, if followed, would be rather counterproductive to teaching youngsters to read. This flyer was broadcast widely in Ontario public school systems and especially targeted for parent-teacher connections.

    The flyer is obviously a public relations product — designed probably for well-meaning purposes but hardly of a standard a reading teacher or committed parent would find helpful. One such expert has concluded that the authors of the flyer have “bats in their belfries” and “clearly don’t have a clue”.

    What is troubling in the flyer is that we are led to believe that any of a number of “different ways” can be used to teach reading. Today, however, we do know a lot more about successful methods and discredited methods. Research literature clearly shows that a phonics approach can be highly successful in teaching reading, to both boys and girls and to special needs children. This is not the achievement level attained by the other major approach, the whole-language approach, which figures indicate somewhere around 60% functional literacy level.

    What is even more disturbing is what I heard at a Comparative Education conference March 10 this year. There is to be in the next few years a massive world campaign to promote teaching of reading to children in developing countries. The work has been done — needs assessment tools have been field-tested — protocols for community involvement have been mapped out, etc. What remains is for the Ministries of Education of the developing nations to then adopt the methods for implementing the reading programs.

    BUT, the literature involved already foresees a problem — “The reading ‘wars’ are alive and well in many low-income countries, often miring ministries of education and teaching centers in seemingly endless debates between the ‘whole-language’ and ‘phonics-based’ approaches.” (pg 11 of 1st edition , 2009, EGRA toolkit. The 2nd edition, 2016, does not have that sentence. Nonetheless, when I talked to some people they said it was always a policy to be set by a Ministry of Education as to which method(s) were to be chosen.)

    The point I am aiming at is this — upon knowing the difference between highly successful teaching methods and less stellar methods how ethical is it to promote, or even keep talk, talking, about those methods which have poor yields and also, at the same time, spin-off secondary industries in remediation — both at school levels and college levels?

    There is some other agenda at play here. Is it political? Is it related to ensuring safe jobs for the industry? This quandary is certainly maddening and absolutely a cause for considerable frustration for parents.

    I have been involved for over 45 years in this effort to get more parent/consumer satisfaction from our education systems, and truly, the deafness to, and sabotage of, successful methods is painful to bear. It certainly is enough to make one think twice about trying to reform an unresponsive education system, which seems to exploit opportunities more for self interest than for clients. The matter of ethics and conscience are raised. Accountability is definitely missing in the equation between client and producer sides in public education.

    Category Absurdities, Education Reform, Obstacles, Uncategorized | Tags: | No Comments

Older Entries
Newer Entries