paulhillsdon.com

Talk about a freakin’ attention seeker and drama queen. I mean, why else would her story make provincial news in the first place. After reading her case on The Province, it seems to me that this woman does not understand that Christmas can be both a secular and a religious ceremony.

In fact, as has been studied many times, Christmas originated not as a celebration of Christ’s birth but as nothing more than a Winter Solstice.

The Christmas *most* people celebrate these days has to do with decorated trees, snow, lights, presents, and Santa Claus.

There is a huge difference between that Christmas cheer, and the religious ceremonies that proceed this time of year that go by the same name.

In her tale, she not once even mentioned a Bible or a Jesus ceremony, and yet she wants the school to bring in a rabbi to light a Hannukah candle.

Frankly, schools have a tough time handling so many of society problems, it doesn’t help when some righteous mother comes about and makes a fuss about secular Christmas being celebrated in schools. Schools, at least from my experience, do a lot to accomodate all forms of winter holiday celebrations, but the fact remains that Canada celebrates modern day secular Christmas, so get used to it.

I wonder if the boy made such a huge deal about himself that he wanted to leave all his friends and never come back to school again.

• BC Grade 4ers are among the best readers in the world, but that doesn’t stop a good 10% of them from attempting suicide a few years down the line.
• The Tories have two seemingly opposing bills coming through the house. The first will regulate our cell phone market to ensure at least 40% of an upcoming spectrum sale will go to new bidders - that means no Telus, Rogers, or Bell. Meanwhile, a new copyright proposal in on it’s way, something Cory Doctorow calls, “the worst copyright law in the developed world.” (Yes, that means worse that the distratrous DCMA from the States)
• For those that liked the recently unveiled mascots, they can happily pick one up now at The Bay - for $25 minimum. But, if you’d rather wear Quatchi than hug him, you can always try and get a free Olympic pin at any Bell store this morning (just remember to clip out the coupon from The Province).

These bright, young pupils have been asked to consider whether it is possible to step in the same river twice?“Well - I think you can step in twice because if you step in once with one leg you can step in a second time with the other leg,” she says.Another counters that this would not qualify as stepping in twice because although two legs have been used - only one body has gone into the river.

The ball goes to another who says: “You could step in the river one day and then go home. Then the next day you could come back to the same river - as long as you know the way - and do it again.”

Then, in a flash of inspiration, one of the boys who has been waggling his hand impatiently, now ventures hesitantly: “If you step in the river on Saturday and then you went to step in the river on the next day - where you stepped on Saturday would be gone because the river keeps on moving.”

The BBC article outlines the many skills students gain from philosophy, such as diplomacy, problem solving, communication, and emotional intelligence.

I’ve been an advocate of expandings the teachings of philosophy into the broad curriculum of schools for a while now. I had simply never once thought that such a heavy topic could be presented at such a young age. Furthermore, as the article notes, “A recent study suggested that children’s IQs are boosted by learning philosophy at an early age.” I had previously assumed topics that philosophy addresses would be best deciphered during the early teenage years, about the same time such ideas would normally come to oneself. This new research is quite similar to the suggestion that evolution be taught to kindergarteners.

This report truly shatters my preconceptions of, not only when a child should be introduced to certain subjects, but also at what age a person should presumably know everything they need to live success lives in the “real world”. Because, obviously, if topics such as philosophy and evolution are taught by age 7, instead of learning it in late high school (if at all), this would presumably speed up the age at which one should be graduating.

However, I would like to points out several things here. You may note that the article explains that this philosophy “instruction” was in fact a discussion. There was no teaching of right and wrong; it was a free-for-all processing and sharing of the brain, exactly how a philisophical topics should be addressed in schools.

Moreover, if we are to be introducing such heavy topics to children at age 6 or 7, I strongly believe that we should return to the topic, and delve into in deeper each year, as the students would learn more and more, and the topic does not become forgotten by the time it is immensely useful (such as early teenage years or mid-life for philosophy).

This does bring up other questions though. What other subjects can be brought up at such a young age? What subjects should be introduced by age 3? Or age 1? Or age 16? Should a child be introduced to such topics alltogether or be left to his or her own discovery (Montessori) - or should there be a mix of both? Should topics like philosophy be discussed in the classroom, let alone at such a young age (obviously I would argue for it, but I can already see some parents accusing the school boards of indoctrination)?

Incredibly interesting article, in any case. Your thoughts?

It’s ironic how little school actually prepares it’s students for real life and the real world. I know it’s said time and time again, but it’s so painfully true. School seems to be simply about slotting kids into jobs. Unfortunately, a large majority leave school and wander about for years before deciding what they actually might possibly want to do. Of course, that decision doesn’t hold as much weight as it used to, considering it’s estimated my generation will go through numerous jobs in our lifetime.

This is why fostering the development of skills should be the top-most priority in any form of education reform. Leo over at zen habits has come up with a list of 27 such useful life skills that aren’t currently in the curriculum. The only ones I somewhat disagree with are auto care (a very American thing) and household care - they are both rather difficult to oversee in a school setting.

I’m generally against testing as a means of tracking progress. This is because they fundamentally represent what school is today. Tests have reshaped formal education into an industrial-like institution and created competition like never before (Wow, it’s like mini America for children!).

First of all, if tests are an effective way of tracking progress, I would ask then why they aren’t used in early learning; throughout the primary grades?

Next. Yes, tests are an effective way of tracking data. Unfortunately, very little data in school is designed to be tested. Math is one of the few subjects that fit the test model well. However, even in that case, it truly depends on the way the tests were created.

Tests cannot be shaped around cramming and memory leaking. This alone completely explains why tests should not be used. They track the wrong data. Tests are evaluating your memory skills more often than not. And while we’d like to think that everybody can remember everything they’ve ever been told, we know that that is not the case. People remember what is important to them; things they usually repeat day after day. Like, driving a car. If you stop driving a car for 10 years, it will surely be hard to hop in the seat and just go.

That leads to a larger issue of what exactly is being taught in schools, which obviously affect what is put into the tests. There needs to be far more emphasis on skills development rather than just mindless knowledge. I’m not saying some history should not be taught. I am saying however that there is limited time to people’s lives and not everyone is designed to be a human Wikipedia. That’s what Wikipedia and Google are for; to learn something when don’t know about, when such a time arises.

But I digress. To give an example of where a test is effective: IQ tests. Theses are real brain busters, designed to engage visual observation, detection of patterns, and problem solving. This is not testing memory or knowledge; it is testing a skill.

Politicians like to claim it is essential to employ standardized testing to ensure an effective means of tracking progress is in place. Beyond what I’ve just debunked about the nature of the data they are testing, there is another fundamental problem with their argument. Simply, they are claiming that by judging which students and which schools are getting the worse marks, they can decide where more funding should be allocated. The conflict here though, and it may be different depending on where you are from, is this rationalization of testing for funding allocation does not work if the system has true student equity. By that I mean that every student is given a certain piece of the funding pie each year. I suppose it may change depending on grade or disabilities, etc., but it should be relatively the same for all. A system such as this does not allow for extra handouts to one school versus another. And generally, if a student is disabled, the school and teachers know about it, and it isn’t really an issue.

So, truly, how does testing, and standardized testing, help out your average kid in school. The truth is that it doesn’t.

When administration sees low marks in specific areas, they demand that the teacher’s spend more time to hammer a subject in to students. On a rare occasion, something like a “writing initiative” may be launched, which, again, never helps out the average student. So, the excuse that more funding goes to worse school does not hold up, and in fact, many would argue, becomes a detriment to the health of the school’s ecosystem.

Alright. So, let’s propose an elmination of tests. Let’s say every student gets equitable funding every year. How does one effectively measure and track student’s progress?

While this would require a good teacher to student ratio, nothing higher thatn 25:1, project-based learning is the way to go. It’s a useful means of developing well rounded skills about all kinds of subjects. There, along with well defined criteria and flexible curriculum, the teacher, peers, and the world aid in evaluating a student’s work. Imagine a three pronged system, where the teacher’s influence is only one among many, and the project is designed for the audience of the internet. The wisdom of crowds is employed here and would surely provide a more equal evaluation for all students.

Education is a long term commitment and policies, unlike true initiatives, take a while to see real benefits. Many times, it takes almost a generation to see are real societal change come about through schools. So, how do politicians track their progress with schools?  Easy. With important, easily trackable data, like the images below that show the statistics on the highest level of education of students each year.  Or, there could be graphs based on the number of apprenticeships, or the student to teacher ratio. This is real, profound information politicians could work off of. Showing that their education policies are making real change to their communities and developping a better world.

[via Nine Shift]

Schools have been reduced to “exam factories” by ministers’ obsession with league tables and targets, a National Union of Teachers conference has heard.

“Schools have been reduced almost to factories for producing test and exam scores. But scores are not the product of education in the way that cars, barrels of oil and tins of baked beans are for their industries; schools are there to benefit the children in them.”

“They are a non-negotiable part of school reform. They provide valuable objective evidence in the core subjects, helping inform further improvements to teaching and learning.

I’m not completely against exams. The problem though is that governments are testing for “further improvements”. Can somebody please explain to me how the government ever helps the crappy schools? If money is attached to each student, and each student is equal, funding should not be changing depending on test results. It’s my understanding that the only other reason they produce these statistics is to encourage competition between schools and school choice, despite the fact that most students are stuck to their specific school because of geography and socioeconomic status. Beyond just that, it’s not like the government fires teachers with low class results, nor should they. Testing for national or state-wide scores just serves no particular purpose, in my opinion. I support the decentralisation of schools!

[via the BBC]

From an international perspective, I think that Americans would instantly regain all their crediblity lost under Bush by voting this man into office. Sure, he’s not the greatest speaker in the world, by he talks from the heart an has a genuinely idealist vision for the States and for the world. Kucinich voted against the War in Iraq, voted against the Patriot Act, and has filed the papers for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Not only that, but his platform stands on many actual bills he has proposed to Congress, covering issues from Universal Healthcare, to a reformed Education system (including new money for early childhood learning). He also seeks to begin the green revolution, including signing the next Kyoto-like treaty, and wants to reconnect the US with the world, because he understands that America is not above all other nations, but an equal, and should abide by international law. I love how he speaks his mind and seems truly happy with his job and empowered by his vision for a better future. Kucinich 2008 baby!

18 award-winning teaches have created a report on how to fix U.S. schools. The first step is a whole new pay structure for teachers. Currently, teachers are paid according to their seniority, or how long they’ve been in the school system. Seniority also generally determines which teacher will be awarded a job when positions open up. Pay scales up depending on seniority, and usually stops somewhere between 10-15 years of work.

The report suggests recreating a more natural career ladder based on three tiers: novice, professional and expert. They also propose that a teacher who takes on extra responsibilities should be paid for their time. For example, a novice could start at $30,000, moving up to $70,000 for an expert, and as much as $130,000 for an expert with additional roles in the school.

Meanwhile, just how to one should judge what tier a teacher would be placed under is up for debate. The report advised pay based on classroom results, however it acknowledges the flaws in such a system.

While I generally agree with the idea of a career ladder, I do not think performance should be based on classroom performance. All that will create is even more standardised testing, and teaching to the test. What I would suggest is a mixture between classroom performance, seniority, and a teacher rating system completed by all students.  Also, I do not know where they will get the money to literally double the pay of all the numerous teachers who help the school beyond what the job calls for. But an interesting report nontheless.

The BBC reports the secondary schools in the UK are testing pilot projects where teachers introduce emotional intelligence to teenagers.

“It teaches skills such as resolving conflicts, managing anger, respecting others and playing fairly.”

Apparently, while conflicts still arise, students were able to put out the fire before anything escalated, thanks to the teens seeing the situation from each others perspective.

What I’ve always found weird is that in elementary school, we got so much of this “extra” curriculum that I found highly useful: bullying, smoking, sex ed, food and health, etc. Why is this all eliminated from high schools, when this type of instruction is of most value? I’m glad to see the UK is taking some initiative and pushing emotional intelligence into secondary schools.