This is Controversial

After a week of not blogging anything (I've been really busy, looking for a place to live, if you must know), I came across this article. For those of you too lazy to click on the link and read it, I'll summarize it very quickly: people all over the world are protesting, mostly because they have a very strong sense of entitlement.  Greece and Montreal (over tuition increases) were specifically mentioned.

Though I have always felt that I have fairly left-leaning political views, and I believe that a government's job is to take care of its people first and foremost.  Which means providing all sorts of things that the free market can't provide, such as police, health care, infrastructure (roads, rail, ports), and education. I know government isn't very efficient at a lot of the things it does, but the anger againts governments these days borders on the ridiculous. Though I expect to have all the conveniences of living in modern times (see my above list of what a government should provide, though it's not comprehensive), I'm not so deluded into thinking that I should get it for nothing or that it doesn't cost anything.  Yes, big business has its hands in government and yes that does influence some decisions it makes.  But unions influence them just as much, and it feels like once someone has something good, they'll do anything to protect that even at the detriment of others.

I'm not saying we should all just sit down and accept every government decision that comes about, especially when it means cutting services and rising taxes.  But governments must be run in a way that doesn't lose money. Someone loses out when that happens.  Who are we to say we should get all the good things and someone else should pay the price.

In my field, I've had to witness hundreds and thousands of people who have it way better than me (and many others) complain about small concession they are being asked to make.  They just don't seem to get that there are hundreds and thousands of willing people who would kill (well, maybe not kill) to have the opportunity to work at their jobs. It makes me want to shake each and every one of them and shout: "DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT!?!?!" Which would (in my fantasy) be followed by a lot of swearing and more shaking - though, this being reality, I'd never do that.

In the past, unions and protest movements (ok, even some today) have been helpful in advancing many worthy causes, but in many places those times have passed. At some point it switches from ensuring fairness in society to taking more than what you've earned.

So yes, I've also noticed this sense of entitlement, or "entitlement addiction" as the article calls it.  It is very frustrating for me to see since I'd love to have it as good as some of these people.

A School Without Deadlines...?

As I said in my previous post, I wanted to talk about two articles I saw in the Globe and Mail this past weekend. The second article concerns deadlines - or rather a lack of them - in schools these days. Basically, the idea is that students can no longer be penalized for handing in assignments late - if they turn them in at all.

This is a tough issue to tackle. On one hand, students need to be held accountable for their learning. Though I am unaware of a similar rule in B.C., I've been in many classrooms here where it feels like pulling teeth to get assignments in from students (though admittedly, that could be due to my relative inexperience). I find it hard to justify passing a student who hands in a quarter of the work they are supposed to do. What values are we teaching children by allowing them to "do what they can?"

That being said, since we do push students faster than their abilities, it is much harder for some students to do all the work in the given time. Should we be asking students to do more than they are able to do? What about home situations? Some students have help at home, while others have other things on their minds at home (and I don't mean XBOX).

Like the last post, it seems like the system does not offer any satisfying solution to this situation. We can either teach children about deadlines (the fact that we have deadlines in the first place could be debated - why does a paper about World War II (or whatever topic you choose) have to be finished by Friday? The war is not going anywhere), or we can frustrate many of them by giving them too much.

I find it interesting that the article briefly mentions rubrics, and in a way, dismisses them. Without getting into a big debate about marks and the difference between a 79 and an 80% I will say that I think that rubrics are fairer to students and a better measure of their progress.

So in closing, I have a lot more issues to look into in the future, including: Marks, Deadlines, and the segregation of students in Gifted programs (or otherwise).

I hope this didn't confuse you too much. I think the purpose of me writing this is to expose the issues facing our schools today (of which I saw many the last few months).

To Fail or Not To Fail

This past weekend, the Globe and Mail published two articles about teaching and I thought I would try to devote a post to each of them. The first article concerns failing students. The article, by Jill Mahoney, goes through many reasons for not failing students, but does provide some of the arguments for failing students.

Let me first explain that in my last few classroom experiences this has been an issue with which I have fought with sleepless nights. I'll out line the arguments for both sides (both of which I agree with) and then I'll offer up my suggestions for a better way.

Arguments for Failing Students:

1. If passing is automatic, then why should students try? If a student doesn't feel like working, failing is one thing that can be hung over students heads. It can be a motivating factor.
2. Failure happens in real life. Students may as well get used to it at an early age. If we give them things without an effort, they will expect it later in life.
3. Eventually, at some level of school (High School) students will need to do work to pass, and they will need skills to pass. If they didn't learn how to add or multiply in elementary school, then who will teach them in highschool? Teachers are expected to be accountable, but I have seen many grade 5 classes where MANY students (not just some) are functioning at grade 3 and 4 levels (and some at grade 1 and 2 levels). These students must be taught these grade 3 and 4 things before they can move on to grade 5 things. (I concede this could also be a problem with curriculum - but more on that one later).
4. If you promote students based on age (and not ability), you end up with a wide range of abilities in a classroom, which makes it much more difficult to teach. Sure it makes a teacher's job easier (and I might sound like I want it easier with this, but that is only a secondary benefit) but it also allows teachers to do more for ALL students.

Arguments for Not Failing Students

1. Self Esteem. I'll accept this argument as long as it applies to the current system. Imagine you are the only one in your whole school who gets held back. Not so fun. Under the current system failing a student can be disastrous.
2. Peer Groups. Students apparently need to be with their peers to develop properly. I can accept this argument in the current system where the failed student would be the only one who is older.
   

So What's My Solution?

Well, it's clear that in the current system, there are great reasons to both fail and to not fail students. Personally I think the system is broken. We are the ones that have placed this stigma on failing by not failing students (I realize that I put way more effort into one of my practicums - that I failed - while many of my students didn't lift a finger in class and were guaranteed to go on to the next grade), and to solve this problem and satisfy all parties we could use a major overhaul of our educations system.

I propose grouping students by abilities and not by age. Students must meet certain standards and criteria to move on to the next grade. I need to explain a few things with this. Does this mean standardized testing? Yes and no. It means a set of standards. There are certain outcomes that students need to demonstrate. They ought to actually have to demonstrate them all before they can move on to the next set. I don't think these should be kept secret from students. They should know what is expected and how to meet each expectation. The second thing I want to make clear is that there should not be this big high stakes failure. If you fail a grade in this system you lose a whole year. In my proposal you could move up and down grades whenever you completed the outcomes for a grade. Students would work with a teacher that helps them meet those expectations and gives them the support they need. In theory everyone in each class would be at the same ability level (more on this below) so students would be able to work on the same thing at the same time.

To make sure students had interaction with their peer group, they would also have a few periods a week (probably at least one a day) where they are with their peer group. I honestly think having students work with students of other ages is more beneficial than having students work with the same group year after year. But what do I know?

One last thought I have for my solution is this: what if a student does really well in Math and poorly in Language Arts? Well, in theory, the school could be set up so that students could go to different classes for each subject depending on their level (though I think this could be difficult if the gap between subjects was very large - as reading is important to EVERYTHING!). I'm sure my system is not perfect and could use some adjustments, but the current system is not exactly perfect.

Thanks for reading all of that.... what do you think???

The Earth is Running Out of Earth!

You may have noticed that during the last two days my posting has slowed down a bit. I've been very busy, but most of that is over now so I'm going to try and make a good post here.

I read an article in the Globe and Mail Focus section this weekend that I thought was rather interesting. The article was called "Planet Earth has a dirty little secret" (unfortunately it is not available for free on the Globe website, but you can purchase it if you like).

The main idea of the article is that we are destroying or degrading the usable soil faster than it can regenerate. We are doing this by building on top of the soil, by poisoning the soil and by growing crops too often in the soil. The author, John Allemang, and the scientist he talks to, David R. Montgomery, say that even if we can solve all of the other environmental problems, we will eventually run out of soil and be unable to grow the food we need. Problems with dirt can easily cause famines which have, in the past, killed many people (100 000 people in West Africa in 1973). Dr. Montgomery suggests that we have between 200 and 2000 years until we get into real troubles. It is estimated that we lose 1% of our usable land worldwide each year.

I don't want to paraphrase the article completely, but I will give some points that I thought were important:

• since World War II approximately 40% of global cropland has degraded.
• our ancestors were much fewer in number and would often farm an area dry and move on to the next. We do not have that luxury any more.
• people are more likely to get behind issues related to water than issues related to dirt.

Dr. Montgomery has a book that covers this topic (sorry, the link is Amazon. Keep in mind there are MUCH better places to buy books from!).

I guess this post could come off as another warning to the masses to go along with global warming (climate change), pollution, etc. I think this is just another sign that we need to rethink the way we live. All of our environmental "issues" these days stem from the same attitude many of us have with regards to the planet. That is the real issue. This latest idea is but one symptom of a bigger problem. I'm at a loss myself, but obviously if this is right, we do need to start making some changes...

Trying to Reduce Their Environmental Impact

Today's post will be brief. It was brought to my attention (and it was posted in a comment on this blog) that there was some recent media attention given to people who are going to great lengths to reduce their impact on the environment. Since I talked about simple ways people can act to help the environment last week (and got some great feedback from my readers! - by the way, I'm tallying up those results hopefully very soon), I thought this would be a great way to continue that discussion (future plans include going in-depth on some of those ways mentioned last week).

Anyway, the article I was referring to was "Zero is the New Black" written by Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail on Saturday April 7th, 2007. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the article, but maybe you will want to do that. This was an interesting article coming from this author as she is often criticized for her SUV driving habits.

The article talks about a few different people, among them is Colin Beavan, the No Impact Man. In his blog he explains that :

No Impact Man is my experiment with researching, developing and adopting a way of life for me and my little family—one wife, one toddler, one dog—to live in the heart of New York City while causing no net environmental impact. To do this, we will decrease the things we do that hurt the earth—make trash, cause carbon dioxide emissions, for example—and increase the things we do that help the earth—clean up the banks of the Hudson River, give money to charity, rescue sea birds, say.

Check it out as it has some interesting information and insight as well as some interesting links. Apparently there is a movie and book coming out in 2009.

A second blog, written by EnviroWoman - sorry, I couldn't find her real name in my quick search - is discussed in the article. She details her quest to live plastic free in this blog.

Both blogs are interesting reads and may give you suggestions to help reduce your impact, or - if you're ambitious - eliminate your impact on the environment.

Thanks go to Alex for bringing this to my attention.