Ask Your Teacher To Take You Outside

I have a t-shirt I wear often at this time of year. The front of it reads "Ask your teacher to take you outside today".

My oldest son attends a Sr. Public school, which means that there are only grade 7 and 8 classes there. In his first year, there was a grand total of one day of outdoor education. It was part of a science unit about food chains. On that day, the kids were piled into school buses and driven to a dedicated outdoor centre about 20 minutes away. It was a beautiful location, but the species we saw (I volunteered as a parent) could all be found within a 10-15 minute walk from the school. In grade 8, the was no trip; there was absolutely no outdoor education at all.

Now, this school has also won some environmental awards, mainly based on the efforts of a group of students to maximize recycling and composting during nutrition breaks. Some students have also worked to try and get some trees planted on the barren property, and others have suggested plans to build an outdoor classroom in the future. Would this classroom be used, were it to be built? Would demand slacken once the weather turned cold? What about kids who don't have adequate winter clothing, how could they take advantage of such an opportunity? Who would maintain it? How could it be used best?

Kids who play and learn outside tend to be calmer, more physically fit, and are less likely to be deficient in vitamin D.

When the teachers do not see the connections between nature and the subjects they teach, then they are unable to help the students make these connections. When the students rarely experience nature, they are not likely to make these connections on their own either.

In a world threatened by climate change, alarming rates of species loss, vast deforestation, explosive human population, ocean acidification, food security issues, and lack of clean water (more people have access to a cell phone than to a toilet), the lack of connection we have with nature is downright terrifying.

I could start quoting Richard Louv, but it would be much better if you were to read his books. The point I am making here is that our very educational system is missing one of the most crucial fields of study and our society is suffering as a result.

The sad fact is that children are better able to name brand logos than they are to name or in other ways identify plant and animal species found in their own back yard. Kids may go years without ever seeing any wild nature at all, let alone learn how to relate to it, understand it and learn from it. This reflects our obsession with things instead of life and place. Is this really the value system we want to pass on to our children?

I am fortunate to live in an urban area with easy access to natural areas. Yet the kids of neighbouring families still do not use these places, for reasons I can only guess at--safety, over-scheduling, or maybe because they fail to see the value in these places.

When we pare down our needs to the basics: food, clean water, clean air, shelter, and some might argue, companionship, it becomes clear that we are a part of the natural world. The rest is just static that we've created along the way. We are a busy, restless species, and this static can help us sometimes, but it is not a need, and it often gets in the way of our understanding of our place within the larger natural system.

Camping is a wonderful way to connect with nature. The less you bring along from home, the stronger your connection can be. Part of the trick is to relax and listen. Nature is not quiet, at least not in terms of actual sound; in fact it can be quite loud at times! But it has a rhythm and calmness to it that bring to it a different sort of qualitative "quietness" to it. Nature doesn't have "should's" or "ought to's" about it; it just is. For the keen observer, such as a child at play, there is much to be learned.

Do you remember that kid who never wore a coat when it was cold out, who spent more time outside than in, played outside even in the rain, and was daring enough to even sample the mud pies (you know, way back when kids actually used to make mud pies)? Do you remember how the adults used to say that he'd catch his death of cold etc., yet he never got sick? There are reasons for this that we are only now beginning to understand.

Last autumn my family and I went on a canoe trip down the Obabika River in Temagami (Ontario). This trip was a couple of days longer than our usual trip, there was rain through part of it, and a creek with what we called "quickmud" rather than water. We became wet, and slogged harder and further than on previous trips. When we returned home, we found the house unbearably warm, despite the fact that the thermostat read 18 C. During the trip our bodies had acclimatized to the weather without our noticing. This is something we don't often allow to happen, at least not in the western world, and yet it could be so very useful. I have to wonder, what other natural qualities have we lost along the way?

Giftedness and Achievement: Attitudes, Misconceptions and Recommendations

What Does "Gifted" Actually Mean?

Part of the issue with identifying gifted students is that the criteria vary widely from place to place. Add to this the idea that permeates our society that gifted programs are somehow educationally superior to "regular" education, and a sense of elitism develops. In my opinion, groups such as Mensa do not help with this problem. Because of this, such programs are in high demand from parents who understandably want the best for their children. Different states and provinces face the need to look to a standardized test score criteria at which they can point to justify their programming decisions. Since different jurisdictions have varying levels of funding, student populations, resources, etc., the numbers are based on the perceived number of students they are able to serve. For example, many US states have a cutoff of a WISC IV score (one of the more common IQ tests) of 120; British Columbia has a cutoff in the low 130's. Other areas have different criteria again. Moving from one place to another doesn't change a learner's needs, but it may alter the services that are available.  When the learner is generally in the 120's range, the programs available in the US may well meet their needs. Placing a student with scores in the 160's in that same group will mean that either the teacher must be talented when it comes to providing differentiated instruction, or the needs of one or both extremes will not be well met.

Further complicating matters is the issue of potential cultural and linguistic bias in current measurement tools. While the tools are generally deemed statistically reliable, they are norm referenced on an "average" population which may differ substantially from the background of a student who comes from a different area and/or has a different first language or culture.

Another issue that often goes unaddressed is that of achievement vs. potential. For various reasons, many gifted students do not perform to their potential. When teachers are not trained to look for signs of giftedness, these students may be overlooked.

Gifted students may well be the stereotypical ones with their hand up to answer questions, their work completed perfectly and handed in on time, and who achieve straight A's on their report cards. It is just as likely though that the students who accomplish these things are high-achieving bright students who are not, in fact, gifted. The kid who spends hours on the bench by the principal's office, or the one who hides in the back of the classroom may be gifted. The little girl who comes to the breakfast program wearing hand-me-down pants with holes in the knees may be gifted too. So might the child who speaks no English and recently arrived to the school without any transcripts or files.

Overachieving is commendable, provided the child is happy and well-rounded, but it is not the same thing as being gifted. Overachievers who are grouped with gifted learners may suffer because their needs are much different.

I am going to say this once: not all children are gifted. All children have their own unique strengths and talents, and all children are valuable, but this is not the same thing as being gifted.

Being gifted is not a value statement. A person's worth is not measured purely by academic potential. Individual learners have the right to progress at their own pace, to learn in their own unique way, and to be challenged at a level that matches their own needs.

Gifted students face challenges that are not often understood by others.

Since learning often (but not always) comes easier for these students, it is not unusual to find students who have reached the post-secondary level who have never had to study for a midterm, have minimal note taking skills and suffer from an inability to properly organize and manage their time. Up until then, simply listening in class and occasionally flipping through the textbook may have been enough. Writing an assignment the night before it was due may have worked for them while in high school.
Since these skills were not essential, they were not learned and need to be learned if the student is to progress in higher education.

Now I'm going to backtrack a little. There are gifted students whose abilities are not necessarily in the academic realm. They may be gifted in the arts, leadership or sports. These students also have unique needs which must be addressed.

Because gifted students are more likely to understand complex social issues at a young age, they may have worries and nightmares that are difficult to manage. How do you explain away the famine in East Africa to a four year old in the wee hours of the night? You can try and shield him or her from the news, but it just takes a simple trip to the grocery store or library and the child has read the headlines (or full articles) and demands to know more. Gifted children tend to be keen observers; one way or another they are going to learn about these things, and probably at an earlier age than we would like.

It is important to understand that gifted 6 (8, 11, etc.) year-olds are still 6 year-olds. They may understand complex issues, but they are physically and emotionally still 6 years old. When an adult reads about these things and feels powerless, it is one thing, but when a young child reads it, that sense of powerlessness is magnified. These children may not understand why their friends do not share their concerns. This puts a strain on social relationships from an early age. People react differently to children who are exceptional, and gifted children feel this too. Responses may range from defensiveness to amazement and everything in between. No one likes to be a circus act or be told "Well, if you're so smart...", but the sad reality is that this is often a part of the package for gifted children.

Gifted children usually understand that they are different from most others from an early age. Depending on their personalities and experiences, they may react in different ways. They may retreat and pretend to be "normal", they may develop a fear of success (if I succeed, I or others will expect much more from me), a fear of failure (if I fail, then I wasn't really so smart after all), perfectionism, and / or depression. Less often, they may gloat and gain a superiority complex over their peers. Some try and hide their abilities, and some rebel. Psychological testing can help identify students who have built up their defenses and allow them to gain access to professionals and programs that can help them learn necessary coping skills in order to lead a fulfilling life. It can also help identify (or dispel incorrect diagnoses of) other issues, such as learning disabilities, ADD/ADHD, etc.

It is a myth that all gifted students move on to higher education and fantastic careers. The attitude that "the cream will rise to the top" doesn't work for many; sometimes the cream sours, and sometimes the homogenized nature of society and especially our education system grinds them down, and many fail to live to their potential. I want to clarify here that by "potential" I mean the potential for a happy, fulfilling life, not the number of letters after the name or the dollar figure in their bank accounts. In fact, many gifted students fail to complete high school, and many suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, or other related illnesses.

A well-designed gifted education isn't just something extra fun and exciting, with lots of academic prestige and opportunities for a special elite population. It can be a lifeline for some students.

Ideally, gifted programming should include coping mechanisms for dealing with these issues with peers and adults. It should teach students to understand how their brain functions and how they are both "the same" and "different" from others, why this is, and how this works for people with a variety of exceptionalities. Along with basic study skills and time management, it should include academic enhancement, enrichment and acceleration according to the individual needs of each learner. It should provide opportunities to work in the larger community both within the school and outside on various academic and community service projects. It should allow space and support for student-led inquiry. Like all education, it should help to develop the whole person, academically, socially, spiritually and emotionally.

The needs of the gifted are unique and in order to serve such students, we need teachers and administrators who understand these needs and have the necessary skills and training to serve this population.

An Open Letter to John Milloy

Dear Mr. Milloy:

When I recently read about the proposed budget cuts to education, particularly the choices as to which programs will see funding cuts and which will not, I was deeply disturbed with the direction the Ontario Liberal Government has taken.

When I voted Liberal in the last election, I did so with the strong belief that your government would see fit to support the needs of our youth. By cutting the funding to northern communities and putting a low cap on the maximum credits a high school student may take, this budget will fail our youth.

Canada has an unfortunate reputation internationally as a nation that fails to support its aboriginal people. Cuts to northern education in Ontario will hit those groups who most need support. This will not fly under the radar of people who care, people who would normally vote Liberal.

The EQAO cuts do make sense to me. In fact, the tests are one way the educational system has sunk to its current low standards. The standardized curriculum is weak and our students enter high school with little to show for their previous years. Math and science are particularly weak areas when compared with other countries.

In order to gain all of the required and recommended courses for several post-secondary programs, a student will need at least as many credits, often more, than your budget accounts for. Many students will still take extra courses, but will need to pay for them out of hand. This sets up a two-tiered system of education in which students from less affluent families are penalized. But perhaps that doesn't matter, since proposed funding cuts also affect post secondary education.

How many students know their career path at 13 or 14 years of age? Yet by capping credits in this manner, students are given no room for flexibility in their choices. Choose one wrong course, and it could cost you your post-secondary education or a chance at an apprenticeship.

It is true that there is waste in our high schools and that this is one place where cuts can be made. Many students take the same course two or even three times over in order to upgrade their marks, even when a credit was granted. Should taxpayers foot this bill? I would say no.

What also bothers me is that funding for all-day kindergarten has not been touched. By making our schools into daycare services early on, we set the stage for low standards at an early age. Young children need free play and unstructured outdoor play in order to grow and thrive to their utmost potential. One only needs to consult any journal on developmental psychology to see the literature supports such choices. Schools are not created with these needs in mind. Clearly, once again it is not the needs of the students that are guiding the decisions. But then, since most students cannot vote, perhaps this is not of interest.

It is, however, in society's best interests to prepare students for the future in the best way possible. The economy cannot take increased youth unemployment, higher drop-out rates and possibly an increase in youth mental health issues and suicide rates. When students look at their prospects, particularly those who will be hardest hit by these cuts, they will no doubt lose some hope. The short and long-term costs of that cannot be underestimated.

I urge you to reconsider your budget allocations in education and to act in the best interests of Ontario's youth.

Sincerely,
Laura Lamond

Endangered: Science & Creative Thinking

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending our regional science fair. This is the second year I have attended. Last year there were approximately 300 projects presented by students in grades 7-12; this year there were about 230. Some of the projects show a great deal of creativity, sometimes in terms of the question being asked, sometimes in the experimental design. It is exciting for me as a teacher to be surrounded with bright, motivated and enthusiastic students.

I've only been to two fairs, so calling my observations "a trend" is probably going a little too  far, but I did notice a few things that I found disturbing. Many student science projects that made it through the initial in-school fairs to get to the regional fair were more replications and demonstrations than actual original science. These sorts of projects were numerous, far outnumbering projects which incorporated original approaches to a problem. A couple of kids even proudly mentioned the websites from which their experiments originated. While they should be encouraged to give full disclosure (a point which I'll return to later), and while replication is an important aspect of scientific study, when I see an experiment that I've seen a dozen times before with no new questions or adaptations, I question the fact that it has made it to this level of competition.

For example, many students have made potato batteries. The experiment which used a variety of fruits & veggies, tried them in both parallel and series and used the energy to perform electrolysis took the idea further than the basic experiment. Unfortunately,  there were many similar ones that were stalled at the equivalent of the potato battery stage, yet made it into the regional fair. There were more of these this year than last, even though the total number of entries was significantly lower. The proportion of higher level prizes to entries was also lower, reflecting an overall drop in quality of the entries submitted.

To be fair, there were a number of truly inspiring projects which showed creativity, innovation, depth and impressive research skills, but these projects were fewer than last year, and stood out from the rest.

Not only are many of the projects generally lacking creativity, depth and innovation, some of the students do not seem to understand the scientific process. There were several projects in which the conclusions stated that their experiment "proved" or "disproved" their hypothesis. Some of the actual concepts and methods were flawed, misinterpreted or misunderstood. Since only a handful of projects were directly entered (from home-schoolers  and students whose schools do not participate in science fairs), and the rest went through the rigors of the in-class and then the school-wide fairs in order to make it this far, the fact that none of the teachers or judges who previously evaluated the project caught this is something I find rather disturbing.

Maybe this is just a fluke and next year will see more innovation and creativity (and scientific rigor). I fear though that this is a trend that will continue. In many ways, it can be argued that it started a while ago when standardized testing became so popular.

There is a trend present in all levels of education for students to ask "will it be on the test?" then ignore any discussions that do not gain a "yes" answer. Getting the "right" answer trumps exploration and discovery through experimenting and taking risks. Divergent education and thinking go hand in hand with creativity which drives innovation. Standardized tests, by their very definition, encourage students to memorize and accept rather than to truly understand.

Getting the "right" answer relies on taking others at their word rather than testing ideas. Back in the middle ages in Europe, the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers were accepted without question. It was only in the age of enlightenment, when Galileo and other scholars began to question and test ideas that science and innovation were reborn. By reverting back to a "get the right answer" mentality, we are reverting back to thinking patterns common in the dark ages.

A grade 8 student I know showed me his school science binder this year. The class studied the seasons. Now, at a grade 8 level, I would have expected to see details such as how the angle of the earth's rotation affects the seasons, seasonal variations, comparisons between various locations, climate (OK, perhaps not that one--we do live in Canada after all!), animal and plant adaptations & comparisons over varying zones, etc. What they actually did looked like something out of preschool. They had to determine which holidays and sports fell into which seasons. The entire term test went no further than this.

When science instruction is watered down this far, how can we possibly expect to move forward as a society? Which brings me to another point: the Harper gov't cuts to scientific research. When there is a pronounced disinterest by the government itself in pursuing science and innovation, what hope can we have that students will be drawn into these fields? But let's get back to the education discussion...

The effects have reached into post-secondary education as well. I have friends who teach or are professors at five different post-secondary institutions and they all report the same attitudes. Students tune out or leave lectures if they stray at all from the exact questions they will see on the test. Students use references such as Wikipedia for major papers, or copy papers directly from Wikipedia or other internet sites. Often this is easily checked by plugging in the first couple of sentences as part of a search term. Plagiarism is becoming the norm, and students aren't even trying to hide it. Moreover, they plagiarize even for smaller assignments that are not worth many marks. One friend reported being able to track the plagiarized bits in a paper because the student hadn't even bothered to change the font in the sections he lifted directly from the internet. Another friend was asked to "go easy" on the students because they didn't know better. So instead of losing their degree entirely and being expelled from the university, they simply failed the course. This professor learned to copy the university's policy on plagiarism for the first class of each term, read through it with his students and have them sign and return a copy. How on earth could students have graduated from highschool and not learned about the legal aspects of stealing/buying/copying someone else's work? Perhaps post-secondary institutions are not demanding enough of their entrants. It seems that every student now feels entitled to a post-secondary education. Many students might be happier and more suited to learning a trade or pursuing other non-academic vocations.

Perhaps I'm a bit naive. When I went to university, I found great pleasure in learning about and researching new topics. It was hard work, especially as I took on a double major which meant double the course load for much of my time there, but it was interesting and compelling. The piece of paper at the end was just another piece of red tape needed to gain employment; the substance and worth were in the process itself. Have we robbed the current generation of such pleasures? Maybe part of the difference is that I chose my majors not for the ultimate goal of making a great deal of money, but out of a true interest in the subject matter. (And before you jump to any conclusions of me being a pampered little rich kid, you need to know that I paid for every cent of my education through working three part-time jobs and taking on a huge student loan.)

Science education should be an extension of the natural curiosity and experimentation of young children. In fact, when allowed to play freely, particularly outdoors, children are natural scientists. To encourage children to continue their explorations throughout childhood and into adulthood is to develop creative, critical, scientific thinkers. Yet how often do we miss the opportunity to delve into further investigation with our children, and instead guide them away from their natural interests? Maybe it's too hot, cold, muddy, or doesn't fit into our schedule or agenda. But it should. To revert to rote teaching as a top-down activity is to stifle all that is good and natural about learning. Just ask any developmental psychologist and they will tell you--or look up the studies yourself. Yet the push in education is for all-day, indoor, top-down instruction even in kindergarten. Outdoor play and outdoor education are increasingly infrequent activities rather than the norm.

When teachers become guides and mentors, students thrive. When it becomes all about standardization, learning suffers. Creativity is squashed like a bug (which many kids can no longer recognize or name). Self-directed learning is an unknown entity. Choices become threatening and overwhelming to students who have been given little or no experience with making any decisions for themselves. Reflective thought, questioning and probing-these are all discouraged in the name of expediency. But when expediency has no true goal (consumerism aside), we simply end up running faster and faster and get nowhere. And that is precisely where our current system is heading.

On Achievement and Self-Esteem

As parents or teachers, how can we help our children reach their full potential?

This is a question I have wrestled with for many years, both as a teacher and as a parent. In my experience, once issues such as special needs and special situations (trauma, language barriers, cultural barriers, etc.) have been ruled out or better yet, addressed, the causes of underachievement generally fall into three categories: fear of failure, fear of success and perfectionism.

Let's say a child, we'll call him Zack, is particularly adept at music. He enjoys playing music. When he has spare time, he often fills it with extra practice. Then he takes an exam and does very well. His score is admirable, and he receives a great deal of praise and positive attention for it. Then, a month or so later, you notice he no longer seeks it out. In fact, he begins to resist practicing, He loses his current workbook. When he does practice, he sticks to pieces he learned much earlier, and does not work on any new material.

What is happening here?

It could be that Zack needs a rest for a while after working hard. He could be losing interest, and it may be time to move on. Or, it could be that he is afraid of failure.  What if he is unable to continue to surpass, or even meet his own expectations or the expectations of his teacher or parents? If he doesn't put in any effort, Zack doesn't ever have to face his own limitations, whatever they may be. He gains control of the situation in the sense that if he doesn't try, he and others will have low expectations. He is in control of any feelings of disappointment from himself or others, even if it means it costs him any chances at further success.

Now let's say his 14-year old sister Zoe loves languages. Her aunt taught her some Spanish at an early age, and both French and English are spoken regularly at home. She became trilingual at an early age, and enjoys conversing in all three languages with various friends from different countries over the Internet. Her parents are proud of her linguistic abilities and offer her lessons in German, as they intend to visit there the following summer. Initially Zoe shows enthusiasm at the idea, and attends the classes, however, her teacher reports that she "zones out" and does not participate in class discussions. Zoe also fails to complete some of her exercises and hand them in. When it is time to leave home for class, Zoe makes excuses to stay home. Moreover, she stops conversing with others in Spanish and French, and when asked about these, she says she was never very good at them, and was finding it more and more difficult to understand what the others were saying.

What is happening here?

Zoe identifies herself as a gifted linguist. She may not remember learning the languages she can speak, yet she speaks them well. If she tries to learn German and fails, can she still consider herself a gifted linguist? What if she isn't really such a gifted linguist anymore, what if it was all a big mistake and she isn't any good at languages after all, what will that mean? When she starts the class, she is back at square one, having to learn a language from scratch. Although she makes some quick progress initially, she realizes that it will take a while to become as fluent as she is in her other languages. Thoughts of self-doubt begin to cloud her learning, and she reacts accordingly.  

If she can downplay her abilities in the other languages, maybe she can lower her own and other people's expectations for her acquisition of German, or any other language, in the future.

She is afraid that any successes she achieves will be used against her in order to raise future expectations, either by herself, by her parents and teachers, or other significant people in her life. She is also afraid that the way she and others view her might somehow be wrong, and that she will lose her sense of identity if she somehow fails in her efforts to learn German.

Kami has achieved high marks throughout his schooling, and is especially adept at English, which comes easily to him. When he received a "B" on a writing unit, he was devastated, and since then has worked several hours  extra each night. Despite this, his mark continued to fall. His teacher reports that he has not handed in his assignments on time, and some not at all.

Kami is worried that his work is not "good enough", so he is reluctant to complete it and hand it in. He spends a great deal of effort writing and re-writing it, but it still doesn't feel quite "good enough" to him. He worries about receiving another "B" or worse, and feels he needs to do even better that he used to do in order to make up for that mark.

That makes a lot of sense, but what can we do about it?

Some ways we can help students reduce these fears:

- avoid labels or quantifiers, such as "You're so good at math!" ""You're our star player!" etc.; use praise sparingly, relate it to the effort expended, and make it count (for an excellent article about praise see here)

- take time out with your child to evaluate together major sources of stress, and what you can do together to help reduce stress and make necessary tasks manageable--try and do this regularly and check back to see what is working and what needs to change

- let your child know how you value them beyond their accomplishments--how you admire their laughter, kindness, sense of humour, compassion, quirks, maturity, etc.

- ask you child how they feel about their work, what they've learned, whether this represents their best efforts, what they might do differently in the future, what parts they are especially proud of--let them be their own judges, and let them know you value their opinions (and be prepared to defend them against themselves when they are unduly hard on themselves too!)

- encourage honesty about failures by being open to mistakes and failing, and encourage students to learn from these experiences and continue with their efforts

- admit to your own failings, mistakes and "learning the hard way" so that students can learn by example that mistakes are a vital part of learning

- celebrate successes and failures--yes, failures--as part of life-long learning; failing at something usually means that an effort was expended that stretched the learner beyond their normal comfort level; this means that they took a risk and will learn from it, and is a cause for celebration.  Risk taking is not easy to do, particularly in our results-driven society, but is a behaviour that is most needed throughout life in order to achieve to one's greatest potential

Sir Ken Robinson says it much better than I can here.