The Latest False Dichotomy in Education

Years ago when I was a student teacher, there was a battle of sorts being waged in the language arts curriculum: the phonics vs. whole-word approaches to teaching reading. On one hand, students were asked to sound-out all words they did not know, and on the other, students were asked to memorize thousands of words. Reality: fluent readers use a variety of techniques including but not limited to the ones espoused by such methods. When some people tried to call this approach "whole language" it created confusion as many missed the difference between "whole word" where individual words are memorized out of context with 'whole language" in which context, along with phonics and sight words is an important component.

Many moons later, we see a similar battle being waged in the teaching of mathematics. 

There are the traditionalists who value "sage on the stage" and "drill and kill" methods in which students memorize algorithms and focus on answer-driven tests. Students become walking calculators, and weaker students are often left without the conceptual understanding to allow them to know when and how to apply these algorithms to solve everyday problems. Mnemonics such as "Yours is not to reason why, just invert and multiply", "FOIL" (which only works for up to two terms), and what I've only recently discovered, the "butterfly method" for multiplying fractions are examples of how conceptual understanding is replaced with memory tricks in order to gain a correct answer on a standardized test.

Then there are the constructivists who believe that students must create their own knowledge set through experimentation. They offer an overwhelming range of options for students to explore, but often neglect the final stages of consolidation and review, as well as time for practice with additional problems. Critics argue that since it took centuries to develop the fields of mathematics, expecting students to "reinvent the wheel" is a waste of time for everyone. Such teaching can also be time-consuming, and students who are struggling can become overwhelmed and confused with the large variety of methods to solve a given problem.

Again, just as in the reading example, the polar extremes reflect a false dichotomy when it comes to learning.

Since there seems to be a reluctance for educators, policy makers and the general public to consult the literature, examine what we know about cognitive development and read the studies, there becomes a tendency to grasp onto the methods one is familiar with and hold these as sacred. In many cases in North America, this means that the traditionalist methods are held in higher regard than the constructivist methods. Looking to other countries that tend to do well in mathematics, there are some interesting cultural differences that appear in the approach to teaching and evaluation. One example can be seen in this video with Phil Daro http://vimeo.com/30924981.

In the middle, is student inquiry (again, the name is often used as a substitute for pure constructivism, which causes confusion) in which students are encouraged to try out problems using whatever means they can, discuss the various methods that worked and didn't, share and yes, memorize the methods that work consistently, and connect these methods and patterns to problems they encounter in everyday life. There is structure to the lesson, but there is also a place for students to work with problems on their own terms, experiment and make connections with prior learning. Lessons are scaffolded so that they build on concepts already mastered. Consolidation happens with the whole class and is reviewed again at the start of the next lesson. Students still memorize times tables and formulas, but they also understand where these come from and what is happening with them. They can use a matrix to show multiplication and can tell you why ax + by + c= 0 is a different way of showing y=mx +b, and how various different values of "m" will change the slope of a line when graphed. They can relate this to situations in their everyday life. They know what to do when confronted with 

(2x + y)(3x +2y -z)

 because they have learned the underlying pattern of how this works, rather than just a convenient but limited mnemonic. The understand that BEDMAS is an mnemonic shortcut that helps them use the distributive property, and that the multiplication/division are interchangeable as are addition/subtraction.

Without context, understanding of the underlying pattern, and sufficient understanding to apply the concept widely, a math student's abilities are no more useful than a calculator, and are likely much slower at that. We need people who can not only calculate, but choose the appropriate algorithm and problem-solve in a variety of situations. We need people who understand how to program the algorithms in the first place. Math is not a religion to be taken on faith; it is a science that stands up to scrutiny. We would do well to remember this as we approach the subject in the classroom.

Students learn by doing and thinking, by struggling through problems. When this is connected to their everyday experiences, it becomes meaningful. If we can recognize this in other subject areas, then why not in math?

Working Backwards

Looking through many resources in preparation for teaching math in the school system, there seems to be a very common pattern that is rarely broken: introduce algorithm, apply it to increasingly difficult pre-determined problems, review, then tack on a "real life" or "word" problem to add application as almost an afterthought. Some resources even skip this last step, and few indeed involve proofs, aside from a couple that show how to derive the quadratic equation.

In mathematics, we have a tendency to ask students to accept algorithms without question or debate. We essentially eliminate critical thinking from our teaching.

This is not the way teachers are trained in my province, yet many resources that are used in our classrooms still follow this sequence, and many teachers drift toward this in their practice. The emphasis remains on the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy at the expense of activities that promote higher-order thinking. In my review of the literature, it appears that teachers are most likely to work in this direction for two reasons: this is the way they were taught, and their comfort level with the curriculum is low.

When I say their comfort level is low, I do not mean that they do not necessarily hold a deep conceptual understanding of the topic, but that for various reasons (most often relating to allotted classroom time), they feel the need to get the basics covered as quickly as possible, and for many, teaching algorithms is how they view "the basics" when it comes to math.

But what if we were to reverse this direction, and start with the applied problem?

Critics say that this leaves students high and dry, with the need to reinvent conceptual knowledge that took mathematical superstars many years to develop. They say it leads to confusion when the approach they might try is not the most efficient method.

However, no one is saying that we withhold the algorithms from the students, only that we let them think about the problems that lead to them in order to foster a sense of pattern and deeper conceptual understanding of the processes involved in applying mathematical thinking.

All the memorized algorithms in the world are useless if students never learn when or how to use them outside of math class or standardized testing.

Sure, it takes a little more time for students to think through the "why" of a problem, but feeding them algorithms to memorize and apply does students a disservice. Computers can work through algorithms, and they do it faster and more accurately than people. What we need are people who can reason mathematically, and this requires that we provide a space for applied problem solving and reflection.

It is my gut feeling based on what I've seen with the students I've worked with that students who develop applied problem solving skills aka mathematical reasoning skills, begin to make deeper connections quicker with later topics. In this way, the time invested at the outset may offset the time needed to cover later related topics.

For teachers to abandon the chalk-and-talk and promote these skills will take a leap of faith. It is much more comfortable to stay with the known, particularly when there is a perceived crunch in terms of curricular content demands and the allotted classroom time to cover it. Students may resist since they are used to being given the entire topic at the outset. People tend to resist change.

How many times have we heard the question from our students, "When will we ever use this?". Students, particularly those for whom math does not come easily, need to understand this in order to invest their time and effort accordingly. Resources like this one: 101 uses for a quadratic equation and this one: "Why study math?" can be good places to start. Starting with a relevant real-life problem is also an effective way to connect theory with application.

I issue the following challenge to all teachers who read this blog: choose one topic this year to present this way and see how it goes. Start with a real-life problem, challenge students either individually or in groups to devise a way to tackle it, and share results using Bansho or another similar method in which the different approaches can be grouped in a meaningful way. Discuss which ones work and which don't and why. Finish with a review of those ways that work best. Follow up with some practice problems.

Did you or your students resist? What challenges did you face? Did different students participate than usual for your class? How might you use this to best encourage mathematical reasoning in your students?

Fallacies in the Practice of Rating Schools

Four years ago, we were in the position of moving to a new city. We were homeschoolers then, but expected that our kids would likely attend brick-and-mortar school for their high school years. We had the option of choosing the school they'd attend based on our choice of neighbourhood. We were not familiar with the schools in the area, and it was suggested by our real estate agent that we look at the ratings based on the Fraser Institute. We made a point not to do this, and here is why.

When the Fraser Institute rates schools, they do so based on the standardized EQAO test results for each school. I could write a whole series of blog posts on the lack of validity of this sort of criterion, but instead I will focus on what I consider to be the most important aspects of a school.

This has a great deal to do with my philosophy of what role education should play in our lives.

I value:
Creativity over standardization
Cooperation and collaboration over competition
Depth and breadth of study over short surveys in a given topic
Learning new concepts and applications over drill-and-kill and repetition
Problem-solving over computation
Reflective thought over summarization
Flexibility over standardization and textbook learning
Exposure to a variety of ethnic, religious and socio-economic groups over self-segregation
Acceptance over labeling
Divergent thought over convergent thought

When my kids go to school, I want them to be challenged to think of things in new and different ways, I want them exposed to a variety of subject areas, I want them to be encouraged to problem-solve and find their own solutions. I want them stretched and I want them to be encouraged to take risks with the support of caring teachers.

I am more interested in what is learned at school than what the test scores have to say. I want my children to be more than a series of numbers on a sheet of paper that can never describe the true value they may have to an employer or educational program.
I would rather they have a 75% in a course that made them think and challenge their assumptions than a 99% because they memorized any facts they didn't already know. I value learning over test scores, and growth over stagnation. I don't want my kids spoon-fed information, I want them getting messy, getting involved, asking questions, testing assumptions and knowing because they have seen and done it for themselves, rather than because a textbook, teacher or standardized curriculum told them so. I want them to have active, intelligent conversations with their teachers and peers. I don't want them to become "zombies" or "bots" who do not practice thinking for themselves.

I have several friends who are professors or lecturers at local universities, and they lament how students are less and less prepared for the practical and academic rigours of university education. These are selective schools, and students that enter have averages in the mid to high 90's. And yet--they are unprepared. Plagiarism is now at epidemic proportions. Although some argue that it's because it's now easier to catch, that it was always there, there is also the argument that it is now also easier to plagiarize too. I can't imagine why someone would want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to take courses only to cheat themselves out of the learning they provide. Even if your professors don't catch you, employers will see through this.
Why are students so unprepared, and only focused on that degree at the end? There are likely many factors at work here, but one that cannot be ignored is the fact that their previous (standardized, test score-based) education has not prepared them well for academia, or for life.

My sons are now at that age where I've been looking closer at Ontario's standardized curriculum at the high school level. What I see horrifies me.

In general, the curriculum has been greatly watered down. What passes for an "academic" level course covers less material and less depth than was required twenty years ago. Looking back into the elementary years, it gets even worse. Topics are glanced over, then repeated over and over again in subsequent years. What might have been a "spiral" approach in which the foundation of a concept is explored, then expounded upon in subsequent years has just turned into a confusing merry-go-round of repetition. The concern about introducing abstract math too early has caused an over reaction that makes students repeat the same boring arithmetic for years on end.

It is true that some kids aren't yet ready for highly abstract mathematical concepts early on, but if you can graph it and/or use manipulatives to show it, you decrease the level of abstraction substantially, and possibly keep the interest of students who will scream if they have to work through yet another worksheet on long division. In fact, there aren't many mathematical topics that can't be presented this way, but since they are not in the official curriculum, teachers are not compelled (allowed?) to teach them.

But I'm digressing here.

Let's look at what EQAO is and isn't.
1. EQAO is a series of standardized tests. They are designed to hold teachers and schools accountable (through public pressure brought on by making the scores public) and to measure "areas of need" which are (at least to me) very vaguely described.

2. EQAO is not a measure of creativity, problem solving or critical thinking skills.

3. EQAO does not take a baseline measurement for students.

4. EQAO is not a valid reflection of the average ability of the students of a school.

5. Many students do not write the tests for a variety of reasons, some of which are:
- part time students might not take them
- some parents refuse the tests
- some students may not fall into the category to take the tests, such as those who test out of the subject in high school years (grade 9 students who take grade 10 math, for instance)
- students who opt to take the literacy course instead of writing the literacy test
There are other issues with the validity of scores, some tied into magnet programs, ESL populations, special education, etc., and some more to do with the tests themselves.

6. EQAO is a snapshot of a student's ability to take a standardized test on a given day in a given amount of time. It does not take into account: test taking ability, issues specific to the student (sleep, health, etc.), how many hours were spent drilling and teaching to the test in class, was the sun shining in their eyes during the test, etc. It may or may not be an accurate reflection of a student's accomplishment in the area it is designed to test.

7. Like many other standardized tests, questions on the EQAO tend not to be open-ended and also tend to rely on a single type of approach to a given topic. This makes the tests easier to mark in a consistent manner, but decreases the potential for evaluating the student's thinking strategies.

8. EQAO scores are used for other things, such as to drive real estate markets and put pressure on schools to conform to the standardization model. By making scores public, the Ontario government uses the community, particularly parents, to put pressure on schools to perform.

9. To those who still say "they test the skills our kids need" I would challenge them to define for themselves what those skills really are, and to look at the tests themselves (past tests are available online) as well as any statistical data they can find and see if that, in fact, is truly the case. I can't tell you what you want for your own child; I only speak for my own and my own educational philosophy.
The validity of standardized tests as a measure of cognitive achievement in general is often questioned, and it is best if you look at the data based on these particular tests.


In order to better measure the caliber of a school would require an initial assessment of what the students know and understand upon entering to create a baseline condition. Then, evaluating the student's increase in understanding based on the courses studied would better show the actual learning that has happened over that period.

Of course, there are problems with this as well, as there are some types of learning that are not easily measured, and in many ways, these are the kinds of learning that often best serve students throughout their lives. Things like empathy, social awareness, self awareness, critical thinking skills, creativity, collaboration, problem solving, etc. are not easily measured by any standardized test.



I would also argue that instead of the literacy test, a more useful approach to addressing the issue of literacy would be to have students write a shorter version of the major essay required in the IB (International Baccalaureate) program. And, as in the IB program, essays would be sent to random areas to be marked by a total of 3 teachers per essay to ensure fairness, consistency and validity of the evaluation.

My kids have not written an EQAO, and I would not be surprised if they never do. I will leave it as their decision in high school, since not writing the literacy test means either wasting a credit taking the literacy course or forfeiting a secondary school diploma. Contrary to popular belief, one does not need the diploma to enter most post-secondary programs, but some scholarship opportunities do require one. Grade 9 math teachers sometimes count the test scores as part of the grade (often about 10% of the overall mark), but my kids will not be in a position for that to be an issue.

The move towards standardization is also a move towards what happens in education in the United States. In the U.S., students spend so much time writing high-stakes standardized tests, that the teachers spend nearly all of their class time prepping the kids for the tests. In some areas, recess has gone by the wayside as teachers find their jobs threatened if their student's scores fail to rise. In such a situation, there is little room for exploration and true learning.
It is true that the EQAO tests do not happen nearly as often as the U.S. tests, but there still is a tendency by teachers to throw sound pedagogy out the window in order to drill kids and try and boost a school's scores, and "reputation" since so many people unfortunately buy into what the Fraser Institute has to say about these things.

As far as I'm concerned, you can have your test scores, and your ratings. You can keep your curriculum too. We have found creative ways to bypass the worst of the system, and I challenge you to find ways to make it work for you and your kids too, whether it means homeschooling, or working with the schools to help make them better.

Educational Ideals--An Afterword

Seth Godin sums up many of the issues I have addressed on education in recent posts. Since he is more eloquent than I, I have included his TedTalk here.

Of course, the system he addresses is that of the United States, but here in Canada, and also in other parts of the world, there are many features that are similar and need to be addressed.

One thing he speaks about is the "Flipped Classroom". The backlash against this concept is astounding to me, but I think that there are some other things going on here that have contributed. 

For one thing, it assumes internet access. While most people have this, there are still many who do not, and this can put those students at a further disadvantage. 

I have seen so-called "flipped classrooms" where the teacher watches the students all watch the same lecture. For this, I'm not even sure where to start! Certainly this is a huge waste of time and resources. The lectures and resources are supposed to happen away from the teacher; the discussion and application are what the teacher and class are there for during the classroom time.

I also wonder how this can be used in classrooms that are deemed "inclusive" and in which the abilities and needs of the students are extremely diverse. I would argue that both interest and ability groupings may be the most effective way to encourage all students to reach their potential. 

People have criticized Sal Khan for not being a complete resource unto himself. That is as ridiculous as saying that a research paper with only a single source is complete. Life doesn't work that way. Students need to learn to consult varied resources and to consider biases and limitations within those sources as part of learning critical thinking. Khan Academy, TedTalks, MIT Courseware, PI Lectures, and a multitude of other online lectures are now available, as are websites, internet chats, email, and yes, even textbooks. There is no need for a teacher to present this at a single speed to a classroom of students. Where the value of a teacher lies is in generating discussion, and encouraging students to delve deeply and ask questions, to think of things in different ways, make connections and apply these concepts in new ways. Round-robin reading of a textbook is no more than a way to fill in time. Wasting the time of our students is quite possibly the most disrespectful thing we can do as teachers.

I do disagree though that there is no place for textbooks in exciting students to learn. I do think though that they should be treated as reference materials rather than the main or sole source of information, just as we might consult a dictionary on occasion but are unlikely to sit down and read it cover-to-cover.

What are your thoughts on flipped classrooms, and education in general?

Educational Ideals Part 3: The Educational Setting

In creating an ideal setting, there are three things that need to be considered in order to make this model work in the best manner possible: the teachers, the students and the vision/mission statement.

The Teachers

Teachers need to be well educated in human development. A single course in developmental psychology is not sufficient to accomplish this. Teachers need to understand through research as well as direct observation and discussion how children of different ages naturally learn and grow. They need to understand the basis for language acquisition, numeracy, and abstract thinking. They need to understand what, how and when various milestones are reached. They need to understand cognitive development in order to encourage the student and adapt the environment appropriately.   When a teacher understands human development, that teacher is able to apply this knowledge, recognize the behavior patterns of students, and encourage them at the appropriate level.
This also allows teachers to better identify learners who have unique needs and to help to meet these needs. As it stands now, many teachers in the system have no background in special education whatsoever. This needs to change.

All too often, the developmental aspect of teacher training is neglected and teachers are given courses in subject matter instead. While every teacher should be well-versed in his or her specialty subjects, this should not be done at the expense of a thorough understanding of development. Understanding of the subject matter should be the main focus of the undergraduate degree; the teaching degree should focus on development. We need to teach students, not subjects.

Only once prospective teachers have an understanding of development should they begin to work on practical classroom strategies.

Our society has a bad habit of looking down on the teaching profession. Teachers are not treated as professionals with a great deal of responsibility, but rather as fancy babysitters, at least by some. Teachers are professionals though, with five or more years of post-secondary education. They are responsible for the education of the coming generation, which is something that will carry a lasting effect for decades to come. The effects of a good teacher can be felt through the community. By supporting our teachers, treating them as professionals and expecting professionalism from them, we will help to elevate the image of the profession, attract the best possible teachers to the profession, and provide the best possible future for our children.

Institutions such as the Ontario College of Teachers can help foster this improvement, by holding teachers accountable, supporting professional development, and by fostering communication and sharing of techniques, strategies and visions that work. Gaining and maintaining dialogue among educators is a challenge we must undertake in order to improve our educational system. All too often, teachers, especially newer ones, are left to their own devices and must “reinvent the wheel” when there are many teachers out there who have been there and can share their own valuable experiences. We need to budget time for such dialogue. We also need to maintain a dialogue between educators and the general public. There are many misconceptions regarding teaching that could be easily dispelled through better communication with the general public.

The Students

By emphasizing an understanding of human development in teacher training, students can become the focus of education. It may sound silly to say this, but all too often we are caught up in pedagogy, politics, pre-defined curriculum and policies that we lose sight of the real reason we are here: the students.

There is a tendency to view students in financial terms: as commodities, customers, consumers or investments in the future. Many of us come to education with an agenda of sorts, including social justice, power or control (never a good reason to work with others!), idealism, a quest for a sense of immortality by empowering students for the future, or any number of other reasons. We need to be honest about these, and then let them go. Our own agendas have no business here. I know that even that statement is an agenda of sorts, but once the students arrive on the scene, it is one that is easily transferred to them. If we are to encourage our students to become active, engaged critical thinkers who seek out lifelong learning, we need to empower them and rescind our own control in order to foster their growth.

The Learning Environment

My own ideal for a learning environment would be a mixture of Reggio Emilia and the Sudbury-style schools, with some elements of Waldorf, Montessori (as Maria herself described—not the modern variations), The Teacher Tom’s approach, and even “Maker Sheds” such as KWARTZlab.
There would be indoor and outdoor spaces in which to learn and explore, with spaces created for individual, small group and large group work. 

Play and open exploration would take priority over structure, although there would be a “rhythm” to each day and each season. This would continue through all ages with materials and mentors being available for students based on student interests. Students would have regular counseling sessions with an advisor group to ensure they were on track to meeting their own goals, and these goals would include academics, creative pursuits, physical development (fine and gross motor skill development), spiritual growth (philosophical, social), and general well-being (including physical and mental health). Students would be encouraged to arrange additional mentorships and forge connections with various experts and professionals as they became able to do so. Research would be paramount, from exploring caterpillars to viewing distant galaxies, and everything in between. Students would be encouraged to collaborate and also to share their work with other students of different ages and experiences as a means for fostering in communication skills necessary in most fields of endeavour. Age would be no barrier for learning; all limits would be based on ability, aptitude, physical limitations (ie. if you cannot reach the knobs, you cannot use the stove) and any applicable legal limitations. Students with special needs would have access to the mentors they need in order to work towards their potential. Since all abilities would be mixed, yet each student would determine their own pathway, tolerance would be encouraged through a non-competitive atmosphere. Older students would have an opportunity to mentor younger students without being compelled to do so.

The role of the teacher would become a facilitator. The teacher would provide links to resources and opportunities, be there to bounce ideas off of, ask open-ended questions to encourage students to stretch their limits, and help students create long and short-term personal goals and plan towards them.

The school would be similar to a Sudbury school, except the teachers would take a slightly more hands-on role, and the students would be required to explain their choices and review and update their goals on a regular basis.

The role of the teacher would be more demanding because it would require monitoring of a wide variety of topics and projects, and also a monitoring of available outside opportunities that might be of relevance to the students, such as college/university courses, contests, science fairs, performances, community events, gallery showings, etc.

Since the reporting would be based on portfolios, there would be little testing involved. Anecdotal reports, notes from counseling meetings, goal setting and reviews and physical projects would form the bulk of the assessments.

Some challenges would include the use of space, supervision, communication with community resources including mentors, lab / workshop access, apprenticeships, and co-ordinating with online and college/university programs. Working with less imposed structure demands a great deal of organizational skill on the part of the facilitators, and this would need to be recognized in advance. Excellent and regular communication between the teachers as well as the administration and older students would be imperative.

Some people are bound to balk at the idea of less structure, but after much research as well as some 24 years of experience in education, I believe that this is in fact the best and most effective learning environment possible. It fosters the natural learning patterns of young children, provides a stimulating environment in which to explore ideas, and feedback in order to adapt and learn in an ongoing fashion. Learning to make and set goals, then to follow up with them from an early age will help foster study skills, time management and also enable students to make connections between their goals and the foundation skills needed in order to attain them. Support from teachers who act as facilitators and educational counselors will help students work out their own learning pathways while providing support as needed. When the learning is relevant and comes in an order that is logical to and for the learner, it becomes deeper and better learned. The student values it and understands its relevance, and can be free to embrace it.

Educational Ideals Part 2: The Learners

So many times parents, teachers, administrators, politicians and the general public become so wound up in their own ideas about education that they lose sight of those most important in decision making: the students.

Let’s look at the average young child, say, 3 years of age. Most children at this age have gained the ability not only to understand language, but to communicate their own thoughts, needs and opinions. They are beginning to see themselves as separate and unique human beings. They thirst for independence while still heavily relying on the adults around them to meet their needs. These kids are mobile and have all the skills necessary to explore their world, and indeed, this is what they are incessantly driven to do. Follow your average 3 year old around for a day and you will see a small scientist perform dozens of experiments with seemingly ceaseless energy. Try and stop them and you will often find resistance, sometimes complete meltdowns. The child has work to do here! This work takes many forms, but one thing is common to all of it: it falls into the category we call “play”.

Fast forward a couple of years. Now the child has a more sophisticated level of play. Following a 5 year old around you can see that they are experienced now. Parallel play becomes partner play, causation is understood, comparisons are made and language and motor skills are more developed. A 5 year old may remember the names of other children and use them, remember which kids enjoy which activities, and have a longer attention span for completing an activity. They may find difficult social tasks such as waiting one’s turn, sharing and listening in conversation are now within their reach. They are forming a base on which crucial social constructs including  cooperation and collaboration can grow.

The five year old child is just refining these skills and then what do we do? We sit the child down for rote learning tasks led by an adult in which they are told what to do and how to do it. No more taking turns, no more listening, no more experimenting with “why”, cause and effect, etc.  No more choices to be made by the child; suddenly the adults know best and the children become vessels to fill with the answers to standardized tests. We pit them against each other in this way, comparing results between students, classrooms, schools and boards or districts, guiding them away from any growth toward cooperation and collaboration. We suddenly label these children as “ready to learn” and completely negate the natural learning that has worked so well for them up until this point.

In some places, we impose this agenda even earlier. We degrade children's natural learning in order to make our schools into publicly-funded daycare institutions.

In the name of (take your pick here): politics, funding, equality, opportunity… we “streamline” education by age-segregating children into often packed classrooms and feed them pre-packaged, one-size fits no one curriculum developed with corporate and political interests at heart and parental convenience backing it up.

We deny individualism on every front—from development on through interests, background, natural abilities, culture, aptitudes, and freedom of choice. It is a factory model of education which suits no one well. We stifle creativity, play time and free time by bringing busy work (often called homework) into our children’s lives even in the primary grades sometimes. We do this despite the many studies that show that this is not helpful to children’s learning, and may well be detrimental to them in many ways down the road. Our children are caged by a society that spreads fear through its media, despite falling crime rates, causing parents to place unreasonable restrictions on children’s free outdoor play time. Our kids are able to name more brand names than common native species. They spend hours more on homework and hours less on meaningful learning and growing.

At the same time, we introduce a feeling of alienation by denying them the experience of true collaboration and substituting competitiveness in every aspect of their education.

Why do we allow this?

The truth is that those who can afford to often find alternatives, be they private schools, homeschooling or advocating on their child’s behalf (which can be a full-time endeavour that may lead nowhere in the end).

Some parents buy into the homework myth and/or the standardization myth. Some believe that allowing children to learn naturally and at their own pace leads to certain groups falling behind. They believe in the “political correctness” without realizing that this idea is itself upheld by prejudiced ideas of what these groups are capable of. They ignore other factors that can be addressed but are unpopular, such as poverty and mental and physical illness and problems with the health care system. They also ignore language and cultural barriers. It is easier to generalize, and in generalizing we have created “opportunity” for “all” to “achieve” to “the same” level as each other.

Opportunity = highly structured environment in which all children are treated not only equally but the same

All = those who fit in or conform to the expectations of the “average” or “slightly below average” in all given subjects at the same given time based solely on age

Achieve = obtain acceptable test scores on arbitrary standardized tests written and mandated by someone who has not met the learner

The Same = all expectations of achievement are based on the age of the child and the perceived ability of the teacher and are evaluated solely by standardized test scores written and mandated by someone who has not met the learner

This model is meant to be “objective” in that all children are “treated equal”. Being “treated equal” here though is not the problem; being treated “the same” is.

Being treated equal could allow for more reasonable goals, such as “each student will be challenged at his or her current level of ability in each given subject area”. This allows flexibility for children to move at their own pace without having their time wasted or forcing them ahead before they are ready to move on.

It is not the same as ability grouping because it is constantly up for review. Student A may find place value easy, but have difficulty with long division. She can move quickly through place value and spend a little more time working on long division.

The reality is that no child learns every subject and subtopic at the same rate and at the same pace as the “average” student their age.

One way to be certain to waste the time of every student, ensure that at least once they meet with frustration, and stifle executive function development (time management, organizational skills, study skills), creative problem solving and critical thinking skills is to follow this standardized educational model.

This model will ensure the “success” of compliant employees and middle-management, but it comes at a cost.  That cost includes a rise in health care costs, a continuing disconnection with nature, the loss of the values of science and innovations, and a loss of our souls as creativity and the arts in general are devalued.

Educational Ideals--A Personal Viewpoint Part 1

The following is the first of a series of blog posts in which I examine our current educational system in an effort to determine what is needed in order to achieve what I believe to be the best it can possibly be. I may seem idealistic at times, but if you can’t dream about the way things ought to be, then there is no chance of ever achieving it. Today I start with a philosophy of education.

What is the purpose of education in Canada? Is it to allow our country to function as a democratic nation? Is it to encourage its citizens to aspire to reach their full potential? Or is it to provide a functional workforce for corporations and maintain an economy?

I would say each of these points has some merit, but truly, for Canadian democracy to work, the citizens need to be educated. When citizens reach their potential, the entire nation benefits in both the short term and the long term. Reaching one’s potential means different things to different people, but for the sake of this post, I am going to argue that it involves the lifelong intellectual, creative, social and physical development of the individual to the level that allows them to continually gain a sense of accomplishment. The least of these goals refers to the workforce component; I prefer to think of us as much more than potential employees. When jobs alone become the focus of our efforts, we all lose out. Employment is important and everyone needs to make a living, this is true. But when we only view citizens with this narrow lens, we rob ourselves. We rob ourselves of the potential to be great. We rob ourselves of the potential to make the right decisions rather than default to the easy ones. We rob our nation of its humanity.

If our primary goal is a combination of democracy and realizing our potential, how do we achieve this?

First off, I believe we need to consult with the professionals. These are the psychologists who study cognitive development, and the educators who work directly with the students. We need to look at what the research says. We need to follow the science.

Nearly everyone you meet has a strong view of what education should be. This isn’t surprising considering the importance it has on the individual and society in general. We need to evaluate these ideas in terms of their robustness in light of current knowledge in the field.

One example is how the research shows that children learn best through unstructured play. Many people prefer to see these same children saddled with worksheets from an early age. What they don’t understand is what the research has shown. Worksheet “drill & kill” style education may impart some knowledge, but it does little to develop the creative and social (and physical) aspects of development; in fact, such activities tend to work against such development.

So often we hear the words “work ethic” bringing to mind images of Dickensian workhouses. It is not unreasonable to expect one’s livelihood to bring pleasure unto itself beyond the regular paycheck. In fact, people who enjoy their work tend to be more productive than those who do not. Some people refer to their work as “play”, such as mathematicians and scientists who have truly found their passion. Do they work hard? Certainly, but the work is fulfilling and pleasurable in and of itself. Personally, I would find being an accountant to be a sort of personal hell, but fortunately there are people who enjoy working with numbers and finances. Some people find they take great pleasure in making a difference in the lives of others, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers. Some enjoy the pleasure of putting food on people’s tables through farming. When education becomes little more than a process of completing discrete mundane tasks, it teaches people to accept such things as inevitable. The reality is that this is not inevitable at all. A factory worker who takes an interest in the processes and products made is much more likely to find their job interesting and feel fulfilled than one who is only there to earn a paycheck and has had their curiosity numbed. It is that very curiosity that we need to develop because it is from this that new insights and innovations come. This applies to everyone, from the chief designer to the assembler to the janitor. Accepting the mundane as a matter of course does us all a disservice.  

In considering my own children’s education, I have often thought that the ideal for them may be to gain both a profession and a trade. Learning a trade related to their chosen profession can aid in communication and respect between coworkers, and can also aid in flexibility in different economic situations as well as at different life stages. Understanding the challenges of others from different viewpoints is another valuable skill that aids both in personal fulfillment as well as citizenship. This is only one way to accomplish this; service hours/volunteer work, student exchanges, travel, etc. can also achieve similar goals.

Another benefit of learning both a trade and a profession is that it can give you flexibility. In various economic times, one may be a more reliable employment choice than the other. When starting a family, having this choice can help allow you to spend more time with your children. If you needed to cut back a little due to health issues of yourself or another family member, again, this could help allow for some flexibility.

To sum up: I believe the primary goal of education should be to encourage and enable all citizens to reach their potential and to participate as informed contributing members of society. Note: by contributing, I mean it not only financial, but also social and political terms.

What Do Bright Kids Owe the World?

One of my teachers once told our class that we were responsible for developing our talents to their utmost potential. Since it was a Catholic school, this was part of a religion class, and the idea was that God gave us those gifts with certain expectations.

Now, whether you subscribe to any particular religious teachings or not, if you are gifted, bright or have a child or children who are bright or gifted, you will likely have encountered this same attitude/belief.

For some kids, this is carried to extreme and causes them untold stress as they try to meet the expectations of those around them. Some will decide not to play that game, and purposefully underachieve to avoid such problems. And some others seem to be able to cope with what comes their way.

I wonder though, if this isn't a dangerously flawed idea. We don't make such demands on other populations. We don't make other kids "perform" like circus monkeys simply because they are exceptional in some way. We don't make unreasonable demands on them, to the tune of "you're so bright, you fix it" with the "it" being "little" issues such as world hunger, peace, environmental degradation, national debt, curing cancer, etc. So why is it OK to do this with bright and gifted kids?

The answer is simple: it isn't.

Bright and gifted kids deserve to live the lives they choose. Their contributions to society are their choice. Only through nurturing and supporting them as children will they be able to learn to make choices and develop and grow. And only then will they be able to contribute in a meaningful way. They need time to play, to grow, and to just "be" kids like any other kids. Denying them these opportunities is irresponsible and will not enrich their lives in any way--including educationally. Study after study had shown that kids denied play opportunities have much lower overall academic achievement than those who play. Gifted kids need a childhood too. They need the freedom to try new things and make mistakes. And, being gifted, some of their mistakes might be a little bigger than most. It's from learning to take risks that true learning happens.

On the flip side, how many of us have been told "well, if you're so smart, then..." by someone? Now, how many were told this by an adult in front of a group of our peers? Not only does this ridicule the student, but it also sends out a strong message that intelligence and reflection--thinking skills--are not valued or even welcomed in that group. When this is a school group, it is especially problematic.

It is no wonder that many gifted kids experience depression.

We need to change this. We need to take the effort to better understand gifted children's needs, first as children and secondly as children with unique needs. We need to challenge gifted kids without overloading them. We need to encourage them to pursue their interests in depth, and provide opportunites, resources and contacts to enable them to do so. We need to allow them "down time". We need to support their social and emotional needs as much as we do their educational needs. We need to recognize that being gifted will mean something different for each individual, and that their needs will vary greatly from child to child and also over time.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to allow them to choose their own future. If a gifted child chooses a less challenging career choice in favour of freedom, less work hours, more family time, and/or the ability to pursue an interesting hobby, we need to accept their choice as we would any other person's choice. If they decide to pursue higher education and push the limits of human knowledge in some way, we also need to accept and support their choice.
Being born with a greater intellectual potential isn't something people choose. Sure, we would all prefer it over other options, no doubt. But it should not become a lifelong debt to repay to society. In the end, the only thing a gifted child owes to themselves and society is the freedom to live the life they choose.

We have come a long way in our understanding of the needs of the gifted, but we still have a long way to go.

If your child is bright and/or gifted, you can obtain additional support from your local chapter of ABC:

ABC Ontario Chapter: http://www.abcontario.ca/
ABC Alberta http://www.edmontonabc.org/aabc/
ABC New Brunswick http://www.sjfn.nb.ca/community_hall/A/asso4180.html

International Agencies:
NAGC UK http://www.nagcbritain.org.uk/
AAGC USA http://www.aagc.org/
NAGC USA http://www.nagc.org/