Canada's Education System May Not Be As Good As Some May Think

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

When I am trying to get it on as fast as possible so I don't spend my entire night on CP there are going to be mistakes and I could care less.

When you're trying to get it on as fast as possible, I suggest you don't spend any time on CP.

[Khel]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It was in the original thread that started this discussion.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=107

Thank god, I have trouble reading sometimes, and I didn't want to miss it!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I'm also not keen on private schools based on particular religions - I think exposing kids to a range of ideas and beliefs is important and religious education should be kept at home. Maybe it is a result of me being a bit of a children's rights advocate; my view is that the long-term good of the child (including being able to make his/her own mind up about what to believe after being exposed to a variety of ideas and being taught to think critically) outweighs the parents' desire to have their kids kept in an environment where they are indoctrinated in a particular world view.

I agree, but that isn't our choice to make.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Can you explain how the post you quoted is relevant to your comment? Someone tells me that firefox has a spell check and I say I don't use it. I admit there are spelling mistakes in my post yet I never once attacked any other poster for any kind of typing or spelling error or claim that anyones ideas are less relevant because of any such errors. I provided evidence to back up my claims, something that no one else has done. I don't want to spend all night on CP and never say anyone else has to either. So I really don't understand how you think I am holding people up to some kind of standard.

You certainly hold the education system, and presumably the people that are in it, to a higher standard, decrying their lack of basic literacy skills yet you constantly litter this board with decrepit writing.

I started this thread so the other one would not be derailed. I made my point and provided evidence to back it up. Some people agreed some people respectfully disagreed and others completely could care less about actually debating and just attacked the poster without bringing any meaningful discussion to the thread. Some people just completely dismissed all the evidence without providing a meaningful reason as to why it was not correct. At the beginning I stated my opion because of what I had read and heard. I provided examples of what I read and heard. Instead of people debating the information in those examples and providing reasons why they may or maynot be founded they decided to just attack the people or groups that provided the information.

The problem with your 'opinions' is that your basic assertions are so broad, they are impossible to refute (The education system has problems? Gee, thanks for the insight). And then you blame other people when they know that?

Everyone knows my opinion. It is not set in stone. Bcb has provided a bit of personal experience which is good. No one has yet provided hard facts as to why I should change my mind. I don't want an American style education system but like I said in the beginning, my view is more choice is always better. So unless anyone posts anything else with some material facts than I am done posting in this thread.

Can you be done posting at CP?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

That said, I still don't see why teachers can't 'Fail' a student. I understand the multiple reasons why it is an undesirable outcome, but I still don't see why teachers aren't allowed. Is the "...policy that no student can be held back" actual written policy?

My information is second-hand, so I don't know if it's actual written policy or just something teachers have been told by their school boards. However, I've heard the government won't fund extra years of school, so when students are failed the school board is responsible for paying for the extra years without government funding. Teachers do complain about the policy, but our government isn't exactly big on listening, particularly if it would mean spending more money on something that most of our politicians got by without having (i.e. a good education).

[Azure]

The education system should be held to a very high standard. We're talking about our future here.

And I don't give a crap about how the studies were carried out, or how they don't properly represent whatever the hell some people think they should represent.....this isn't the first time I've heard that there are a lot of kids that aren't ready for post-secondary when they graduate. I would venture to say that from my graduating class, 30% of the kids couldn't properly write an essay.

None of them were dropped back. All of them passed, and every single one didn't last in post secondary -- provided they even made it in.

Far as I'm concerned there are a lot of improvements that can be made to help students that don't learn as quickly as others.

The core subjects are rammed down our throats, and there is no room left for the kid who has musical, art, physical education, computer, or any other 'side' subject.....ambitions.

Alberta is a huge trades province. Are we making sure that kids have the opportunity to take an electrical course in high school? What about carpentry? Plumbing? All these courses could offer our future a HUGE advantage when they get to post secondary.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

My information is second-hand, so I don't know if it's actual written policy or just something teachers have been told by their school boards. However, I've heard the government won't fund extra years of school, so when students are failed the school board is responsible for paying for the extra years without government funding. Teachers do complain about the policy, but our government isn't exactly big on listening, particularly if it would mean spending more money on something that most of our politicians got by without having (i.e. a good education).

From what I understand the government doesn't have an official standing policy to not pay for extra years of education but they do pressure the school divisions to pressure the principal and administrators of the school to pressure the teachers to not fail a student.

Which in some cases means we have idiots graduating from grade 12.

[kootenayguy9]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

My information is second-hand, so I don't know if it's actual written policy or just something teachers have been told by their school boards. However, I've heard the government won't fund extra years of school, so when students are failed the school board is responsible for paying for the extra years without government funding. Teachers do complain about the policy, but our government isn't exactly big on listening, particularly if it would mean spending more money on something that most of our politicians got by without having (i.e. a good education).

High Schools in Calgary are funded where students get six semesters to complete their work. If students are unable to complete 100 credits in six semesters they are entitled to go to Chinook Learning Services where they are fully funded. I work as a teacher at a school where we get funding for students who haven't completed their education in six semesters and we are able to meet their academic needs.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The education system should be held to a very high standard. We're talking about our future here.

And I don't give a crap about how the studies were carried out, or how they don't properly represent whatever the hell some people think they should represent.....this isn't the first time I've heard that there are a lot of kids that aren't ready for post-secondary when they graduate. I would venture to say that from my graduating class, 30% of the kids couldn't properly write an essay.

None of them were dropped back. All of them passed, and every single one didn't last in post secondary -- provided they even made it in.

Far as I'm concerned there are a lot of improvements that can be made to help students that don't learn as quickly as others.

The core subjects are rammed down our throats, and there is no room left for the kid who has musical, art, physical education, computer, or any other 'side' subject.....ambitions.

Alberta is a huge trades province. Are we making sure that kids have the opportunity to take an electrical course in high school? What about carpentry? Plumbing? All these courses could offer our future a HUGE advantage when they get to post secondary.

Agree completely. And for the record, I had a lot of mediocre teachers too, though I will say that my experience in high school was overall first rate. I did have some bad ones in junior high.

The thing is, though--things have been improving over the last decade in every respect except one: resources. Teacher training nowadays is vastly superior to what was required a generation ago, and as a new generation of younger, better trained teachers takes the reins, my prediction is that we'll see greater improvements in the final product.

That doesn't mean that it's perfect, by any means. Our education system is critically underfunded, and while it would be great to have trades courses in high school, I highly doubt the resources exist in the current climate--though I'd be glad if someone more expert in the field could offer their experience on that subject.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would say through my public high school education, at least 6/10 of my teachers were decidedly middling with very little incentive to go above and beyond.

I don't know how this is going to come across, but as a high school grad in 2002, there are a few faults I remember:

- I remember in grade 11 physics, two 1kohm resisters in series, total resistance = 1k + 1k .... teacher pulls out her calculator, 1+1= ... 2 ...

- grade 12 chem, balancing acids and bases, the teacher had a whole process for how you calculate total pH when you mix the 2 together. Nobody understood why the process got your the result, they only knew how to follow the recipe. Class was 35 students, everyone but me and my lab partner could not figure out why why you take an acid, and put more mol's (I believe that was the unit) of base than acid, why the final result was a base. This issue and confusion lasted 1 hr... the problem is, teachers teach / students learn things in terms of recipe's, canned answers without understanding WTF is going on... some of these people get 95% or whatever in high school, then bomb out later in life (and many of my friends are a casualty of that).

- grade 9 math, we were doing area and perimeter and stuff. On one of my quiz's, we were given a rectangle with a length of 7cm and a width of 6cm. What is the area? I put 42cm^2. I got 2/7 on that question. Why? because I was supposed to first draw a picture of the rect, list the information, label the rect, write the formula, write out my calculation then give the result. Seriously, no joke.

- reading/writing, I'm one of those guys who are lower on the literacy level. Yet they wanted me to try Shakespeare and poetry?

Few things to consider

[redforever]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I (really) appreciate your comments, and understand them fully. Teachers are placed in a tough spot in this regard - no question. I'm going to be SUPER clear here....I appreciate teachers and respect them very much! It's a hard job that gets harder every year. None of my comments are intended to diminish the respect that teachers deserve - they are purely to identify things that I don't happen to agree with.

That said, I still don't see why teachers can't 'Fail' a student. I understand the multiple reasons why it is an undesirable outcome, but I still don't see why teachers aren't allowed. Is the "...policy that no student can be held back" actual written policy?

At the very least, I think that teachers have a professional duty to flunk a lousy student, period. Unless there is an actual written policy that forbids it, the failing of students should be a regular occurrence. Lastly - if that written policy actual does exist, the teacher's union (and it's members) have a professional duty to bring it to light and argue against it.

I taught Junior High in the 70's and 80's. Already at that time, it was pretty near impossible to fail someone in Junior High. Some failing was still occurring at the Elementary level though.

I can remember one student who really just pushed the system to the limits and unfortunately his father backed him up. In fact, the father basically said, you will not fail my son.

I taught this person Math. He was never a discipline problem, in fact far from it. He sat there like a lump on a log and never interacted period. He also never did one iota of work. He sat there the whole year, never doing one assignment, never completing one question on any test, he just did nothing.......and as far as we could determine, this student had no learning disabilities etc. It was impossible to motivate him to do anything in any subject.

Yet at the end of the year, his teachers were asked to come up with some kind of assessment that would get him passed. I refused. I rated him at 0, that is what he had done all year, zippo. Yet he was moved on to Grade 10.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I don't know how this is going to come across, but as a high school grad in 2002, there are a few faults I remember:

- I remember in grade 11 physics, two 1kohm resisters in series, total resistance = 1k + 1k .... teacher pulls out her calculator, 1+1= ... 2 ...

- grade 12 chem, balancing acids and bases, the teacher had a whole process for how you calculate total pH when you mix the 2 together. Nobody understood why the process got your the result, they only knew how to follow the recipe. Class was 35 students, everyone but me and my lab partner could not figure out why why you take an acid, and put more mol's (I believe that was the unit) of base than acid, why the final result was a base. This issue and confusion lasted 1 hr... the problem is, teachers teach / students learn things in terms of recipe's, canned answers without understanding WTF is going on... some of these people get 95% or whatever in high school, then bomb out later in life (and many of my friends are a casualty of that).

- grade 9 math, we were doing area and perimeter and stuff. On one of my quiz's, we were given a rectangle with a length of 7cm and a width of 6cm. What is the area? I put 42cm^2. I got 2/7 on that question. Why? because I was supposed to first draw a picture of the rect, list the information, label the rect, write the formula, write out my calculation then give the result. Seriously, no joke.

- reading/writing, I'm one of those guys who are lower on the literacy level. Yet they wanted me to try Shakespeare and poetry?

Few things to consider

So... the math and science weren't hard enough, but the literature was too hard?

In all seriousness, I had some similar experiences in junior high--but I also know that older teachers are not as well trained as younger teachers nowadays--and I have hope that things will change, given enough time and enough resources.

I still don't get how dividing the already small resource-pie into even smaller slices fixes any of these problems.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I still don't get how dividing the already small resource-pie into even smaller slices fixes any of these problems.

Because people don't understand the problem. What people keep bringing up are matters of policy, and have little to do with how money is divvied up.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So... the math and science weren't hard enough, but the literature was too hard?

In all seriousness, I had some similar experiences in junior high--but I also know that older teachers are not as well trained as younger teachers nowadays--and I have hope that things will change, given enough time and enough resources.

I still don't get how dividing the already small resource-pie into even smaller slices fixes any of these problems.

No, thats not what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the way things were taught were meant to spread over a broad spectrum, the "leave no student behind" I guess... when you don't understand the math/sciences, find a way to get them the marks whether they understand it or not, just keep truckin along with the curriculum; in the arts, keep to the schedual and get them whatever works. I found math and science to be taught in "canned" processes, so students don't learn to do things properly. In the arts (languages, et al) I also didn't think teaching things likes Shakespear/poetry useful... I actually got > 80% in English 30 (IIRC thats what it was called) but I should have probably been in English 33.

For the record, as far as age is concerned... the 1+1=2 caculator teacher was young (30's?), the chem teacher was old (60's?), the grade 9 math teacher that wanted to fail me was 50's and the english teacher (albeit a fantastic and patient teacher) was 70's.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

No, thats not what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the way things were taught were meant to spread over a broad spectrum, the "leave no student behind" I guess... when you don't understand the math/sciences, find a way to get them the marks whether they understand it or not, just keep truckin along with the curriculum; in the arts, keep to the schedual and get them whatever works. I found math and science to be taught in "canned" processes, so students don't learn to do things properly. In the arts (languages, et al) I also didn't think teaching things likes Shakespear/poetry useful... I actually got > 80% in English 30 (IIRC thats what it was called) but I should have probably been in English 33.

For the record, as far as age is concerned... the 1+1=2 caculator teacher was young (30's?), the chem teacher was old (60's?), the grade 9 math teacher that wanted to fail me was 50's and the english teacher (albeit a fantastic and patient teacher) was 70's.

As for the teaching of Shakespeare, I respectfully disagree. I think it's critical that students acquire not only a solid grounding in our cultural history, but also skills in writing and critical reasoning that are best taught in an English class.

But really, I was just teasing--I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, every profession has people that don't quite measure up--but my sense is that on balance things will get better over time, not worse, given the innovations in teacher training and so on. Now if they could just have some access to technology upgrades in the classroom and more updated teaching resources, we'd be in business.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

- reading/writing, I'm one of those guys who are lower on the literacy level. Yet they wanted me to try Shakespeare and poetry?

Few things to consider

Shakespeare is the biggest reason a bunch of these graduates can't properly read or write.

How the HELL is someone supposed to learn proper grammar, sentence structure and the basics of writing(nevermind reading)...when Shakespeare and a bunch of other stupid books are rammed down their throats all year long?

[Flamesguy_SJ]

This has been an interesting read, and I'm not really sure I have much to add to the discussion, but from my personal experience the problem teachers/educators/whatever you want to call them have been in post-secondary. I had wonderful teachers that were very involved and all obviously had a passion for teaching through grade school and especially in high school, but I've found that probably over half the profs I've ever had at university are pretty content to just sit on their laurels and collect their $80,000-$120,000 (or more) a year to put some powerpoint slides on Blackboard/WebCT and have one or two scantron tests. I also hate the games you have to play with some professors; some of them are looking to have you argue what they say and really think critically about what you are learning, whereas others expect you to "tow the line" and adopt their viewpoint or opinion on a certain subject. Maybe that's just symptomatic of a liberal arts degree, but it's frustrating from a student's perspective to always be guessing and trying to figure out how you should think from class to class and prof to prof.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Shakespeare is the biggest reason a bunch of these graduates can't properly read or write.

How the HELL is someone supposed to learn proper grammar, sentence structure and the basics of writing(nevermind reading)...when Shakespeare and a bunch of other stupid books are rammed down their throats all year long?

How do you propose writing and reading should be taught if students are never exposed to anything good?

The fact is, most of the research out there shows that "teaching grammar" as a subject unto itself is a waste of time. But you can achieve a lot by mediating students' exposure to a wide range of cultural sources, especially those that they might not encounter outside of the classroom.

Besides, Shakespeare is really, really good. There are two types of people--those who appreciate and love Shakespeare, and those who don't appreciate him--yet--because they haven't been introduced to him in the right way. I've converted more undergrads than I can count--and it's not because I'm an amazing teacher. It really is compelling, amazing stuff--if your teacher starts by teaching you how to read it.

Which, not for nothing--adds reading ability to your roster of life skills.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flamesguy_SJ

This has been an interesting read, and I'm not really sure I have much to add to the discussion, but from my personal experience the problem teachers/educators/whatever you want to call them have been in post-secondary. I had wonderful teachers that were very involved and all obviously had a passion for teaching through grade school and especially in high school, but I've found that probably over half the profs I've ever had at university are pretty content to just sit on their laurels and collect their $80,000-$120,000 (or more) a year to put some powerpoint slides on Blackboard/WebCT and have one or two scantron tests. I also hate the games you have to play with some professors; some of them are looking to have you argue what they say and really think critically about what you are learning, whereas others expect you to "tow the line" and adopt their viewpoint or opinion on a certain subject. Maybe that's just symptomatic of a liberal arts degree, but it's frustrating from a student's perspective to always be guessing and trying to figure out how you should think from class to class and prof to prof.

The difference is training. Primary school teachers undergo extensive training as teachers. Many post-secondary teachers don't have any training at all--which makes it a crapshoot. Many profs are fantastic teachers--but there are also many who aren't very good.

I was fortunate in that my grad school offered a considerable amount of pedagogical training. But I'm still not nearly as well trained as a high school teacher, despite having been a teacher for nearly a decade.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for the teaching of Shakespeare, I respectfully disagree. I think it's critical that students acquire not only a solid grounding in our cultural history, but also skills in writing and critical reasoning that are best taught in an English class.

But really, I was just teasing--I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, every profession has people that don't quite measure up--but my sense is that on balance things will get better over time, not worse, given the innovations in teacher training and so on. Now if they could just have some access to technology upgrades in the classroom and more updated teaching resources, we'd be in business.

I know you were just teasing, but just pointing out for those that didn't understand.

I have 3 comments to this post.

1. as far as the "right brain" comment is concerned, took me probably 5x's as much time to understand Hamlet (credit the teacher who spent time with me before and after class to understand it). And when I did understand it, I thought it was masterpiece of writing. I also learned to appreciate MacBeth, after 4x's the amount of time to understand it as well (same teacher, again credit him for his time). If I were to pickup a Shakespear play or a poem, I would still have no idea WTH Shakespear is saying, and need a ton of help and 5x's as much time to understand what he's saying. Poetry, same thing.

So, is Shakespear really necessary? As "right brain" development, why not art? I would love to appreciate art, and I actually dated a girl who was into that for a while, and had her try and get me into appreciating it. It was a hopeless cause, I still can't tell the difference between a Mona Lisa and the artists who sell their work on the streets on Paris.

Thats not to say I am "right brain" impaired - there is some stuff I appreciate and have a certain level of creativity. It just doesn't happen to be languages or arts. So, is it really necessary to teach languages in a "artsy" form?

2. writing/reading of "professionals" ... pick up any scientific textbook or paper, and tell me you can understand what they wrote after reading it only once. Ask an engineer (probably science as well) how long it takes them to read a science textbook or paper, the usual response you'll get is 10 minutes per page. concern?

3. one of my good friends is actually a young teacher (25 years old, teaches high school) and its really cool how he's incorporating "in" technology into the classroom. (just to verify your last comment)