The TandT's long interview roused my curiosity about /the CEO and head of the education research project for AIMS, Charles Cirtwill. He seems a community-minded soul. He has, like thousands of others in Canada, a BA in political science. Nice. But not overwhelming. And he has an undergraduate degree in law. Very useful. And a master's degree in public administration. Think about that.
The man who has enormous influence over our schools and, in practical terms, control of the whole curriculum through the standardized tests, seems to have no experience in teaching and no credentials in it. In fact, he would not be permitted to teach our children in any of the schools he has been given power over.
What the hell was the Minister of Education thinking about when he turned to AIMS to remodel our schools? Did even the Minister know nothing whatever about education?
There's no need to answer than one.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
What story is told in school statistics
The June 11, 2005 editorial in the Times&Transcript mut have had a different writer from the ranter who did the back to school eidtoral that attacked everybody but parents for the performance of New Brunswick schools. At least, so I would guess from a writing style that didn't involve foaming at the mouth. This time, we got to see a worm wriggling on a hook.
The editorial takes a a piece of news that was surely a superbly good piece of news that NB high schools have the lowest drop-out rate in Canada. (Canada as a whole has a lower drop-out rate than the US). Then the editoralist says "well, yeah, but, uh, like, what if, maybe, you know, it could be the kids are just sitting there, like, you know,,,,,,I mean, it just shows how much we have to change our schools, like....
The summary next to the editorial - it's ititled "We Say" - thunders "Rather than worry about statistics that make them look good, our schools need to focus more on the needs of all students." It would be hard to match that statement for sheer blandness, incomprehensibility, contradicttion and near-idiocy.
Why would any school "worry" about statistics that make it look good? Why take good news and treat it as though our schools have publicly wet their pants?
Why say statistics don't matter when the T&T has been supporting the standardized testing and public ranking imposed by AIMS which is based entirely on statistics? Worse, AIMS depends on entirely statstical work while disregarding all other research that has been done on education.
The CEO and President of AIMS,and the man in charge of its education project is Charles Cirtwill. He's primarily a statistician with no trainiing or significant experience (if any at all) in education. Letting him set the standards for public education is like calling in the guy who shovels your snow to do brain surgery on your child.
Alll of this rasises a bigger question. Is there a problem in our journalism schools?
The editorial takes a a piece of news that was surely a superbly good piece of news that NB high schools have the lowest drop-out rate in Canada. (Canada as a whole has a lower drop-out rate than the US). Then the editoralist says "well, yeah, but, uh, like, what if, maybe, you know, it could be the kids are just sitting there, like, you know,,,,,,I mean, it just shows how much we have to change our schools, like....
The summary next to the editorial - it's ititled "We Say" - thunders "Rather than worry about statistics that make them look good, our schools need to focus more on the needs of all students." It would be hard to match that statement for sheer blandness, incomprehensibility, contradicttion and near-idiocy.
Why would any school "worry" about statistics that make it look good? Why take good news and treat it as though our schools have publicly wet their pants?
Why say statistics don't matter when the T&T has been supporting the standardized testing and public ranking imposed by AIMS which is based entirely on statistics? Worse, AIMS depends on entirely statstical work while disregarding all other research that has been done on education.
The CEO and President of AIMS,and the man in charge of its education project is Charles Cirtwill. He's primarily a statistician with no trainiing or significant experience (if any at all) in education. Letting him set the standards for public education is like calling in the guy who shovels your snow to do brain surgery on your child.
Alll of this rasises a bigger question. Is there a problem in our journalism schools?
The Front Page
The front page of a newspaper is for attention-grabbiing news, major stories about disasters, triumphs, unexpected news. The story that political parties seldom put price tags on their promises is scarcely news. In fact, it's common knowledge in any bar classy enough to serve its beer in glasses. So why was it front page in the September 11, 2010 Times&Transcript - with a further half-page on A12? That's a lot of expensive space for a story announcing the equivalent of "rain is wet".
The answer is in the sub-heading of the story. "And when they they do, costs are often underestimated, SAYS THINK-TANK". (capital letters are mine.)
That point ot the story is to advertise the wisdom and insight of the Atlantic Institute of Marketing Studies. Most if consists of quotations from Charles Cirtwill, President and CEO of AIMS, whose bio on the AIMS website would place him well ahead oftAristotle, Socrates and Platoeven if the brains of the latter trio were all combined and they had a good tailwind.
The only important mesage in the whole story is in those three words, "says think-tank". The purpose of the story and the reason it's on front page is to get us used to thinking of AIMS as a fount of wisdom and insights.
That's not news. That's propaganda. And it's propaganda for a propaganda agency.
The answer is in the sub-heading of the story. "And when they they do, costs are often underestimated, SAYS THINK-TANK". (capital letters are mine.)
That point ot the story is to advertise the wisdom and insight of the Atlantic Institute of Marketing Studies. Most if consists of quotations from Charles Cirtwill, President and CEO of AIMS, whose bio on the AIMS website would place him well ahead oftAristotle, Socrates and Platoeven if the brains of the latter trio were all combined and they had a good tailwind.
The only important mesage in the whole story is in those three words, "says think-tank". The purpose of the story and the reason it's on front page is to get us used to thinking of AIMS as a fount of wisdom and insights.
That's not news. That's propaganda. And it's propaganda for a propaganda agency.
Friday, September 10, 2010
part 2
From the front page, we move to the editorial page of the T&T for September 10, 2010. Surely, this is opportune moment to say some nice things about the teachers and schools who have been denigrated and even abused for so long in these pages. No such luck.
What we get, instead, is another dyspeptic column byNorbert Cunnigham (whose grouchy old fart writing style closely remembles that of the person who worte the appallingly bad editorial of the return to school of Sept. 7.
It's fads. That's what it is. Them there schools is all fads.
Well, yes, if you consider that tryiing a new idea out, seeing if it will work, and then discardiing it is a fad, then all of us are involved with fads all our lives. Check out newspapers and magazines. A current fad in the T&T every day is the list of celebrities most of us have never heard of who are having birthdays today. Another fad is lavishing praise on any organization sponosred by the rich. (AIMS springs to mind0. Remember tail fins on cars? Remember flare pants? Fads are a normal part of the process of experimenting and changing and growing up in general.).
When I was younger, I had a beard and long hair. Some people prefer moustaches that look like caterpillars with dietary problems crawling out of their nostrils.
If anything is a fad, it siurely Mr. Cuuningham's favourite project of standardized testing and public school ranking. Their is already scientific proof it is a bad idea. First, the US which has been using it on a wide scale for 25 years is still in the basement of educational success among developed countries.
Secondly, the approach to standarized testing and ranking in the US has been scientifically discredited on two grounds. The first is that such tests do not test students, teachers, or schools. Secondly, while education has somewhat improved after the introduction of such testing, it was improving FASTER BEFORE such methods were introduced.
The caterpillers wiggle again as Mr. Cunningham goes on to present another attack on an area of education he knows nothing about. He accuses universities of encouraging fads. Well, so they do. And so they are supposed to do. A fad is a new approach to a problem. Universities are constantly looking for new approaches. That's part of their job. The same is true of engineers, doctors, chemists, business organizations and journalists (with the possible exception of Norbert Cunningham).
Some fads are dropped - for various reasons -moral, electronic, damage to sales, inconsistent results. Others show by experience they are desirable and are kept. That's called progress.
As well, humans cannot scientifically test everything. You can produce scientific statitistics on anything - including teaching. But if you don't know what teaching is about, those "scientific" statistics are worthless.
Us humans do not understand things only by scientific testing. If we did, we could scientifically test religions to see which, if any, of them is right. But we are humans. Out judgements are based on science, sometimes, but far more on values, greed, hatreds,envy, Weating a necktie, reading a novel, skipping certain parts of a newpaper.'... none of this is a scientific decision. Science deals with what can be measured and repeated without fail. It produces pedictable results. Life doesn't. That's why universities are divided into at least two faculties of study - science and arts.
I have taught in universities. I have many criticisms of them because I know them.
I have never raised obese caterpillers in my nostrils. I know know nothing of the subject. So I do not write derogatory comments about those who do. Mr. Cunninghman's look very nice.
What we get, instead, is another dyspeptic column byNorbert Cunnigham (whose grouchy old fart writing style closely remembles that of the person who worte the appallingly bad editorial of the return to school of Sept. 7.
It's fads. That's what it is. Them there schools is all fads.
Well, yes, if you consider that tryiing a new idea out, seeing if it will work, and then discardiing it is a fad, then all of us are involved with fads all our lives. Check out newspapers and magazines. A current fad in the T&T every day is the list of celebrities most of us have never heard of who are having birthdays today. Another fad is lavishing praise on any organization sponosred by the rich. (AIMS springs to mind0. Remember tail fins on cars? Remember flare pants? Fads are a normal part of the process of experimenting and changing and growing up in general.).
When I was younger, I had a beard and long hair. Some people prefer moustaches that look like caterpillars with dietary problems crawling out of their nostrils.
If anything is a fad, it siurely Mr. Cuuningham's favourite project of standardized testing and public school ranking. Their is already scientific proof it is a bad idea. First, the US which has been using it on a wide scale for 25 years is still in the basement of educational success among developed countries.
Secondly, the approach to standarized testing and ranking in the US has been scientifically discredited on two grounds. The first is that such tests do not test students, teachers, or schools. Secondly, while education has somewhat improved after the introduction of such testing, it was improving FASTER BEFORE such methods were introduced.
The caterpillers wiggle again as Mr. Cunningham goes on to present another attack on an area of education he knows nothing about. He accuses universities of encouraging fads. Well, so they do. And so they are supposed to do. A fad is a new approach to a problem. Universities are constantly looking for new approaches. That's part of their job. The same is true of engineers, doctors, chemists, business organizations and journalists (with the possible exception of Norbert Cunningham).
Some fads are dropped - for various reasons -moral, electronic, damage to sales, inconsistent results. Others show by experience they are desirable and are kept. That's called progress.
As well, humans cannot scientifically test everything. You can produce scientific statitistics on anything - including teaching. But if you don't know what teaching is about, those "scientific" statistics are worthless.
Us humans do not understand things only by scientific testing. If we did, we could scientifically test religions to see which, if any, of them is right. But we are humans. Out judgements are based on science, sometimes, but far more on values, greed, hatreds,envy, Weating a necktie, reading a novel, skipping certain parts of a newpaper.'... none of this is a scientific decision. Science deals with what can be measured and repeated without fail. It produces pedictable results. Life doesn't. That's why universities are divided into at least two faculties of study - science and arts.
I have taught in universities. I have many criticisms of them because I know them.
I have never raised obese caterpillers in my nostrils. I know know nothing of the subject. So I do not write derogatory comments about those who do. Mr. Cunninghman's look very nice.
The T@T does it again - twice in one day. part 1
The front page headline tells of a story that surely says somethng good about our schools. Statsistics Canada says province has the lowest drop out rate of any province in the country. (The makes it considerably superior to US, though the US is the country that has, over the past 25 years, become the most standarized tested and ranked school system in the world.). You'd think this night be occasion to say a few nice words about New Brunswick teachers.
In fact, they are mentioned only once in a lengthy news item - and toward the end. At that, the only compliment to them in the whole article comes for an aducatiom administrator.
I have to admit that though Times&Transcript my be crap, it's consistent crap.
In fact, they are mentioned only once in a lengthy news item - and toward the end. At that, the only compliment to them in the whole article comes for an aducatiom administrator.
I have to admit that though Times&Transcript my be crap, it's consistent crap.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A Collector's item on June 7 editorial page of Moncton Times
It's the good, old type of editorial in which the editor raves and foams at the mouth with vague denunciations and demands on a subhect he/she obviously knows nothing about. Then it ends with fist-thumping roar to the effect that "something must be done."
Right.
It's about schools. The editorial writer says they must be improved, and blames students, teachers administrators, politicians for all the perceived shortcomings of the schools. Trouble is, you know, when you blame everybody, you have't blamed anybody.
Curiously, the writer doesn't blame one group at all. Despite sixty years of research proving that the major factor in education success in school is the parent, the writer doesn't even mention the parents.
Wow! What a success story! A person who is a good sixty behind the rest of the world has made it to editorial writer.
This reality is this.
Don't blame the politicians. They just do whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to do.
Don't blame the department of education. It has to do whatever the minister of education tells it to do.
Don't blame the minister of education. He/she has to do whatever the party bagman (fundraiser) tells him or her to do.
Don't blame the administrators. They have to do whatever the minister tells them to do.
Don't blame the teachers. They have to do whatever the administrators tell them to do.
Don't blame the students. They will follow whatever expectations, examples, and values their parents set for them.
Yes. That's where it starts. With the parrents; the only group the editorial didn't mention, though it is the group with years of research is the most important influence in a child's learning.
And the parents who set the worst example are the ones who believe editorials in the Moncton Times and Transcript.
Oh - and don't blame the editorial writers. We all know who tells them what to write.
Right.
It's about schools. The editorial writer says they must be improved, and blames students, teachers administrators, politicians for all the perceived shortcomings of the schools. Trouble is, you know, when you blame everybody, you have't blamed anybody.
Curiously, the writer doesn't blame one group at all. Despite sixty years of research proving that the major factor in education success in school is the parent, the writer doesn't even mention the parents.
Wow! What a success story! A person who is a good sixty behind the rest of the world has made it to editorial writer.
This reality is this.
Don't blame the politicians. They just do whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to do.
Don't blame the department of education. It has to do whatever the minister of education tells it to do.
Don't blame the minister of education. He/she has to do whatever the party bagman (fundraiser) tells him or her to do.
Don't blame the administrators. They have to do whatever the minister tells them to do.
Don't blame the teachers. They have to do whatever the administrators tell them to do.
Don't blame the students. They will follow whatever expectations, examples, and values their parents set for them.
Yes. That's where it starts. With the parrents; the only group the editorial didn't mention, though it is the group with years of research is the most important influence in a child's learning.
And the parents who set the worst example are the ones who believe editorials in the Moncton Times and Transcript.
Oh - and don't blame the editorial writers. We all know who tells them what to write.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Fighting the Wrong War in New Brunswick
There is a flag flying at house down the street from my home in Moncton, New Brunswick. At first, I took its red, diagonal cross on a white background as the old flag of St. Patrick. But a closer look showed a red and white maple leaf at the centre; and I don't think St. Pat was ever big on maple leaves No. This was the official flag of anglophone New Brunswick.
And I think New Brunswickers, both francophone and anglophone, are being conned into a war that can only hurt all of them.
In 1969, Canada adopted the official languages act, requiring equality of French and English for purposes of federal government. New Brunswick adopted similar provincial legislation shortly after, the only province to do so. I was impressed with the results when I moved here.
The Acadians (French) are a delightful and friendly people. So are the anglos. I can use either language pretty freely without being made to feel I am imposing on anyone, or anyone imposing on me. Any visitor to the two hospitals (one Acadian and one English) might understandably be puzzled about which was which. It seemed to be a model for all of Canada.
I knew enough of New Brunswick history to know Acadians have reason to dislike the English majority (about two thirds.) For a good three hundred years, Acadians were either ignored or discriminated against by the English. But things have been changing rapidly for a good fifty years. Or so I thought.
Then I began to find a resentment among some anglos. They particularly resented the Acadian presence in the civil service. (Well, of course they're rising in the civil service. Acadians are probably the most bilingual people in all of Canada.) The angry anglos seemed so few as not to be a factor.
Then, a man in suburban Dieppe (80% francophone) agitated; and he organized a petition to demand a bylaw requiring bilingual commercial signs in Dieppe. (Of course, it requires French on top.) He is now pressing for a similar bylaw in Moncton, majority anglo.
All that happened just before I saw the anglo flag, the flag of a group that demands the flag be flown at public buildings. Moncton city council meetings now need police protection. See the pattern?
Provoke. Provocation creates provocation in return which creates.... That's how it happened in Quebec.
The difference is that no-one can win such a war in New Brunswick; neither side has enough numbers. All that can happen is to create hatreds and fears and damage to the province. Both Acadians and anglos actually need each other.
What binds the Acadians together is a mixture of shared values in history, music, literature, social life...
It's often called a culture, though that is an oversimplification. It's a part of a culture. When people live together, their culture, most of it, is a shared culture. People who think they are a hundred percent Acadian culture don't understand the meaning of culture. The reality is that all people have more culture in common than that they call their own. To try to make everyone conform to some narrow definition of culture can only fragment the province. It also disracts atention from some very serious problems in New Brunswick that have nothing to do with culture.
Acadians have a flag. It represents a part of their culture. What hinders anglo New Brunswickers is they have no sense of any anglo New Brunswick culture at all. And a borrowed flag doesn't make a culture. All they have is an anger that can only be destructive – for themselves.
So why are both groups launching a war that neither can win?
I'm not sure. But did I mention that Martin Leblanc Rioux, the man who started the petition and is now demanding a bylaw for Moncton, has been studying law in Quebec? (At McGill). Did I mention that there is now a Bloc Quebecois student club at Universite d”Ottawa?
Is there anything that some people in Quebec could gain from a language war in New Brunswick or Ontario? Are New Brunswickers, French and English, being reeled in like fish on a hook?
And I think New Brunswickers, both francophone and anglophone, are being conned into a war that can only hurt all of them.
In 1969, Canada adopted the official languages act, requiring equality of French and English for purposes of federal government. New Brunswick adopted similar provincial legislation shortly after, the only province to do so. I was impressed with the results when I moved here.
The Acadians (French) are a delightful and friendly people. So are the anglos. I can use either language pretty freely without being made to feel I am imposing on anyone, or anyone imposing on me. Any visitor to the two hospitals (one Acadian and one English) might understandably be puzzled about which was which. It seemed to be a model for all of Canada.
I knew enough of New Brunswick history to know Acadians have reason to dislike the English majority (about two thirds.) For a good three hundred years, Acadians were either ignored or discriminated against by the English. But things have been changing rapidly for a good fifty years. Or so I thought.
Then I began to find a resentment among some anglos. They particularly resented the Acadian presence in the civil service. (Well, of course they're rising in the civil service. Acadians are probably the most bilingual people in all of Canada.) The angry anglos seemed so few as not to be a factor.
Then, a man in suburban Dieppe (80% francophone) agitated; and he organized a petition to demand a bylaw requiring bilingual commercial signs in Dieppe. (Of course, it requires French on top.) He is now pressing for a similar bylaw in Moncton, majority anglo.
All that happened just before I saw the anglo flag, the flag of a group that demands the flag be flown at public buildings. Moncton city council meetings now need police protection. See the pattern?
Provoke. Provocation creates provocation in return which creates.... That's how it happened in Quebec.
The difference is that no-one can win such a war in New Brunswick; neither side has enough numbers. All that can happen is to create hatreds and fears and damage to the province. Both Acadians and anglos actually need each other.
What binds the Acadians together is a mixture of shared values in history, music, literature, social life...
It's often called a culture, though that is an oversimplification. It's a part of a culture. When people live together, their culture, most of it, is a shared culture. People who think they are a hundred percent Acadian culture don't understand the meaning of culture. The reality is that all people have more culture in common than that they call their own. To try to make everyone conform to some narrow definition of culture can only fragment the province. It also disracts atention from some very serious problems in New Brunswick that have nothing to do with culture.
Acadians have a flag. It represents a part of their culture. What hinders anglo New Brunswickers is they have no sense of any anglo New Brunswick culture at all. And a borrowed flag doesn't make a culture. All they have is an anger that can only be destructive – for themselves.
So why are both groups launching a war that neither can win?
I'm not sure. But did I mention that Martin Leblanc Rioux, the man who started the petition and is now demanding a bylaw for Moncton, has been studying law in Quebec? (At McGill). Did I mention that there is now a Bloc Quebecois student club at Universite d”Ottawa?
Is there anything that some people in Quebec could gain from a language war in New Brunswick or Ontario? Are New Brunswickers, French and English, being reeled in like fish on a hook?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)