Quote of the week (Nov. 25, 2007)

I'm not here. This isn't happening.

- Thom Yorke, Radiohead

Quote of the week (Nov. 18, 2007)

You don't make friends with salad.

- Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

Quote of the week (Nov. 11, 2007)

I don't want to be lonely. I just want to be alone.

- Daniel Johns, Silverchair

The Canadian education system....

Well, here it is. I've been working on this one on and off for about a month now. I still read it over from time to time, and every time I do, I never really know if it makes sense. Be that as it may, I'm sick of trying to make sense of my thoughts on this matter, so I'm just going to throw it out there, and you can form your own opinions about our education system (not that you haven't already). Enjoy!


For a number of weeks now, I've been trying to writing a disparaging report about how screwed up the Canadian education system is compared to other countries. How far behind we are, how students these days lack the proper respect for the free education they're getting, and blah blah blah. I've tried a number of times now, and each time I've stopped short, and I've been trying ever since to get a handle on why I've been unable to complete this post.

After much thought, careful reflection, and scrutinization, I believe I've finally come to a conclusion. The reason I haven't been able to tell you how completely boned our our education system is, is because in reality, it's not truly a "broken" system per se. While the output of the system may be "damaged goods", the basic rules which govern the system are in perfect working order. Truth be told, if one were to base the success of our education system on the philosophies on which it is based, then the system actually works quite well. We provide a valuable service which is predicated on a system of beliefs that recognizes that not everyone in society is aware of what is best for them, and that education and enlightenment, voluntary or not, is beneficial to all members of society.

That being said, while my original intent to scrutinze the education system may have been fundamentally misguided, it does not mean my feelings were entirely incorrect. While the system may be fundamentally sound, it does by no means acquit the product or the efficacy of the system. This is because many of the most egregious breakdowns in the system do not occur at the fundamental end, but rather on the other end of the spectrum. That is, it is not the rules that govern the system that are in error, but rather the interpretation of those rules that is responsible for this clusterfuck that is the Canadian education system.

This begs the question, where do the rules governing the system end, and the interpretation of the system begin. That is, at what point does the input become the output? The most obvious point would perhaps be at the highest level, as the administration governing any system is most directly responsible for the interpretation of the rules governing that system. Their interpretation in turn guides interpretation at the lower levels. Unfortunately for us, our administrators, particularly at the highest levels, are stupid. One might go so far as to say that it has been their nonsensical mandates and idiotic curriculum design that has singlehandedly alienated thousands of students, while setting others back by failing to prepare them for success at the next level of study. After all, it has been their idiotic initiatives that have moved education away from what has proven to be effective, and blindly forced it into scientifically untested and unproven waters in an attempt to be progressive and win voter favour.

For example, part of the Gr. 2 math curriculum requires students to learn division. Unfortunately, most students at that level cannot proficiently add or subtract, and this gap in numeracy remains until they begin to learn it naturally in Gr. 8 and 9. Since multiplication and division are functions of addition and subtraction, it is virutally impossible for students at this level to conceptually understand division and multiplication when they barely understand addition and subtraction, yet the powers that be insist on using "concrete materials" to help build conceptualization and "making meaning". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a child can calculate that 8/4=2 regardless of whether they understand why. However, according to our administrators, times tables are out, and number grids are in. Mathematics fundamentals are out, "patterns" and "making meaning" are in. Unfortunately, what our administrators fail to understand is that understanding often comes at different times for different children, but it comes nonetheless. Of course, this doesn't do the child any good if they understand why 4x2=8 in Gr. 4, when the curriculum has already moved on to other things. Sorry, Johnny, guess you should have paid more attention in Gr. 2, when we were working with coloured counters, because everyone can understand it when you can "see" it.

And how about the Gr. 10 applied science curriculum? Students who are at the end of the line with science with no intentions of carrying on, or ever returning to science (many whom will simply move into the workplace) are forced to learn how to balance chemical equations, learn about trends in the periodic table, and calculate velocity and acceleration using velocity/time and distance/time graphs. These sorts of concepts, while useful for some students who intend to move on to college (community college for those Americans out there), are uselss for most, and utterly non-sensical for those intending to enter the workforce.


All that being said, these mis-interpretations are not limited to the highest level of administration. The "trickle-down" effect is felt through all levels of administration, and even enters the teaching profession. Principals obsessed with "student success". They initiate programs such as "circles of healing" where students, teachers, and administration get together to talk about how their feelings are affecting the success of the student. Higher levels of government administration forcing students to legally remain in school until the age of 18, so that now they can disrupt the learning of other students for an additional 2 years. "Student sucess" initiatives which make it impossible for administration to remove disruptive influences from the classroom. Teachers who don't understand the value of rules or "memorization", so they teach their students to line up in a circle instead of a straight line, or sacrifice mathematics drills in favour of "hands on" learning.

Parents within the general public also have a right to interpret the system. This has led to greater accountability towards teachers, and less accountability for students. Angry parent groups unwittingly raising and lowering standards on a whim have resulted in standardized testing becoming a joke. Instead of increasing the achievement level of our students, we have instead simply lowered the standards of our standardized testing. Curriculum changes in all the wrong places, professional development spearheaded by unqualified personel, cuts to programs which shouldn't be cut, and compromises in areas which should not be compromised. "Math coaches" who design silly "fluff" activities which, not only don't promote learning, but compromise classroom dynamics. And of course, all this is driven by political agendas designed to appease voter temperment. The creation of educational buzz words and phrases, such as "differentiated instruction", "pedagogy", or "think literacy" are all meant to show the voting public the progressive changes the education system has made to improve student success. These educational fads are not only completely ineffective, and in reality quite dumb, hindering the efficacy of teachers more than helping it, but take valuable class time away from structure, practise, and time-tested educational philosophies that educators have employed for hundreds of years. This may come to a shock to many administrators (and I'm not being sarcastic, as I believe that many administrators truly believe this), but teaching a student that x+1 and x+1=0 are different by putting it into a song one day, and then drawing a picture of it the next day doesn't actually make it any easier to learn.

After I had finished teacher's college, and before I actually started teaching, there was a time when I actually considered leaving the profession, simply because of how completely asinine the profession was about being progressive and liberal. However, I have learned a great many things about the teaching profession after being in it for a couple of years now. And one of the most important things I've learned is that, no matter how boned the system may appear, or how bad administration's interpretation of things are, there will always be a host of good honest teachers disobeying the liberal, voter pandering, asinine, complete joke, fad initiatives brought about by the government and their sniveling, sycophantic administration.

And that gives me hope. Hope for a system with noble beliefs. Hope that, while the top of the pyramid may be made of clay, ready to be washed away (and subsequently replaced), the foundation is made of solid rock. It is a system which is built on noble intentions, and built on the backs of teachers who carry those intentions to work every day. No matter how many times the top of the pyramid is washed away, chipped off, or blown down, the system will always maintain it's integrity, which is held firmly on the backs of the people that carry it. I may not be part of the profession for much longer, but I am proud to have been a part of a profession that wears it's heart on it's sleeve.

Quote of the week (Nov. 4, 2007)

A sharp mind is worth a thousand swords.

- Anonymous

Edumacation?... GREs?... Writing samples?... Oh my!

This was a piece of writing I did about 2 months ago when I was preparing for my GRE exams. It was a timed essay on a random topic that they give you, and the result of this particular essay was one I was rather pleased with, so I thought I'd post it for your reading enjoyment. The topic was whether or not technology created lonliness...

"Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."

“Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing.” The true veracity of this statement is difficult to judge, because it is difficult to judge the value of personal interactions. What is the panacea for loneliness? Many different people experience loneliness in many different ways, and so their “cure” for loneliness will be different from the next person. So how has technology affected these interactions?

The advent of the internet has spawned countless new methods of interaction; cell phones, wireless internet, internet chat rooms, instant messaging, text messaging. The list goes on. What is the value of all these interactions? Teenagers with 200 people listed on their instant messenger window would hardly be considered the constituents of a healthy, deep, and meaningful relationships. Yet the potential for interaction itself is virtually limitless. Perhaps the act of interaction itself is more valuable than the depth of interaction.

While it can be argued that many of these devices have engendered a state of perpetual “superficial” interaction, some of these devices may be more engaging than meets the eye. For example, MMOs (massively multiplayer online games) allow thousands of users to interact via an “avatar” which they control. These avatars have many of the same aspects of human nature. They are able to maintain personal space, they are able to speak and interact with other avatars, they are able to ignore, as well as to turn around and walk away. These particular programs are, in every aspect, a true “virtual reality”. These games allow users to interact on a level which is as close to reality as one can get without actually being there. Web logs, more commonly known as “blogs”, allow users to post diaries for other to read and comment on. These sites allow users to interact with other users on a very personal level. So despite the lack of “face-to-face” interaction which is an impossibility for these programs, the personality and ownership which these interactions take on mimics reality very closely.

But internet technologies are not the only advancements which have led to these lack of “personal” interactions. Automated bank tellers, automatic operators for large companies, and self service quick-pay gas stations have all reduced the need for human to human interaction, replacing it with human to machine interaction. Much technology has obviated the need for a human operator, cutting costs, and maximizing efficiency, both for the company and for the user. Yet one must truly ask oneself if these sorts of interactions were fulfilling in any way. Would more interactions between humans and humans across the countertop to purchase snack items, as opposed to human and machine interaction, be more personally rewarding than flashing a quick-pay card across a reader? Surely the panacea for loneliness does not reside within these ultimately superficial interactions.

The human race is experiencing a technological renaissance; one that has truly changed the face of the world. And as evidenced from the past, the human race will adapt, just as it always has. Telephones, internet, instant messaging, web logs, and video conferencing (just to name a few) have not changed the game, they have only changed the rules. While technology has certainly obviated the need for many face-to-face interactions, either superficial or meaningful, it has not placed barriers on them. Quite the opposite. Technology has made the extraordinary into the prosaic; what was once impossible, such as conferencing with a relative overseas, has now become commonplace and affordable. Anonymity has allowed those diffident people to become gallant heroes and conquerors; it has provided them with power and influence which they would never have in the “real” world. Has technology created civilizations where loneliness is endemic? No. While many former person to person interactions have been made obsolete, technology has not barred these doors completely. Technology has only stacked them in boxes and placed them in storage; always available, but no longer necessary. The rules of the game have indeed changed, but the game itself remains the same.

Quote of the week (Oct. 28, 2007)

I'm not young enough to know everything.

- Oscar Wilde