Education Advisory

Disturbing Trends in Education, Revisited

Published by Tunya Audain June 9th, 2008 in Blog, The Literature and DECEITS in education. 0 Comments

The October, 1981 issue of Education Advisory listed 11 disturbing trends in Education, all with supporting quotes. These disturbing trends are now added to the category in this blog of DECEITS in Education. Do the disturbing trends and deceits in education of 1981 still apply in 2008, 27 years later?

1. Decline in Public Involvement

“If we believe in the principle that public education is of the public, for the public and by the public, then the present trend is bad. In my study I have found that we have less public involvement than we had ten years ago.” Dr. Art Kratzmann, Dean of Education, Univ. of Victoria, BC after completing a one-year study of education in Western countries, 1981.

2. Unions’ Negative Effect on Student Achievement

Robert E. Doherty, public-sector labor arbitrator concludes that teacher bargaining has contributed to declines in student achievement (in Faculty and Teacher Bargaining, G.W.Angell, editor, Heath & Co. Pub, 1981) also see Schools in Jeopardy: Collective Bargaining in Education by P.Hennessy, McClelland and Stewart, 1979.

3. Politics in Teacher Training

“Too often education faculty members seem bent on pressing particular dogma or ideology…” Dr. Walter Hardwick, former Deputy Minister of Education, BC, 1980.

4. Teacher Power

“Citizens seek to enlarge their control of schools. This movement comes at the same time that teachers seek increased autonomy FROM lay control. Thus, laymen and teachers are on a collision course,” Donald Myers in Teacher Power, Professionalization and Collective Bargaining, 1973.

5. School Boards Off Track

“School Boards deal largely with fringe elements (e.g. fundraising, school construction, pupil meals, etc.) instead of more basic features of school organization and the main components of curricula.” OECD Review of Canadian Education, 1976.

6. Swelling Educational Bureaucracies

“In Toronto…(only) 5,000 of the school board’s 9,000 employees are teachers.” From “The Trouble in Our Schools. TODAY magazine, Sept 15, 1981.

7. Parents Not Aware of Decline

“I don’t think parents are as acutely aware of the achievement decline as many other people are….I think there’s an enormous unawareness on the part of parents as to what the schools are doing.” John Goodlad, Dean of Education, Univ. of California after 7-year study of American education, 1980.

8. Teaching Problems Lead to Learning Problems

“I always see far more problems in the WAY the students have been taught previously than in the students themselves.” W.A.T. White, Dept of Special Education, University of Oregon

9. Crime/LD Connection

“I estimate that 80-90% of the young people who come before me in the provincial court were learning disabled as revealed by their pre-sentence reports.” Former BC Provincial Court Judge, Nancy Morrison, 1981.

10. Pursuit of Panaceas

“Schools probably more than any other institution in our society, seem to be particularly vulnerable to fads, poorly tested concepts, and the need to appear scientific and up to date.” Irwin a. Hyman, Policy Studies Review Annual, p 649, SAGE, 1980.

11. Questionable Response by Teachers to Parents

“Governments are increasing their structures for parental involvement…and parents say they want more involvement. What will be the response of the professionals? Will we as professionals attempt to welcome parental involvement, listening with open ears to their suggestions and concerns? Or will we follow governmental regulations for parental involvement in the most patronizing way, meeting the regulations only because they are required?” from Special Education in Canada, Vol 55, #2, pg 24 by Lusthaus, Lusthaus and Gibbs in Parental Involvement in School Decision-making, 1981.

Teacher Unions Can Bankrupt School Boards via Legal Challenges

Published by Tunya Audain May 31st, 2008 in Blog and Abolish School Boards. 0 Comments

Continuing to add to my online archives about school reform efforts over the last 40 years I found the following letter to the Editor from 1986.

Letter of the Day, North Shore News, North Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 19/86

Every School Needs its OWN Trustees

Parents have despaired for years about the lack of quality control in the public schools and the latest setback adds to this frustration.

The dismissal of a teacher held to be unsatisfactory by the West Vancouver School Board has now been reversed and is on appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court.

Not only is the decision making around quality questions frustrating, but there are enormous costs entailed. The estimate was $70,000 for this case so far. As well, there is the veiled threat that the teaching fraternity could bankrupt school systems who try to pursue quality efforts. I’m sure the message of Pat Clarke, former leader of the B. C. Teachers’ Federation got through to parents and school boards alike when he said,

If school boards are looking for a way to spend some money, then they can try doing what West Vancouver has done. We’ll take them to court and appeal every one of these cases.” (Vancouver SUN, Feb 26, 1986)

In 1978 I recall another teacher dismissal case in West Vancouver. The hearings took 21 days and the costs were conservatively estimated at $90,000 (about $150,000 in today’s dollars.)

It must be clear to everyone, especially in light of the added current concern about sexual abuse of students, that there must be better ways to ensure quality control in our schools.

I have maintained over the last twenty years that excluding parents from the governance of their schools would have a damaging effect on education, children and society. While I have been gratified to see more parents taking control of their children’s education via home education, nevertheless, I feel we must find ways in which the natural advocates of children – parents – can have an instrumental role in each of their own schools. This will only be done by a structural change through each school having its own board of trustees as in private schools, or providing parent with vouchers to use on the school of their choice.

Tunya Audain

School Boards Suspicious of Independent-Minded Parents

Published by Tunya Audain May 30th, 2008 in Blog and Abolish School Boards. 0 Comments

Abolishing school boards should lead to parents being the governors of their own individual schools. Yes, like the one-room school house of old.

Trustees would be the parents in that school – not a host of “civic-minded” politicians, often teachers and teacher union activists. Parents would be the overseers of school quality and achievement, the ones to hire and fire staff and teachers. The intent of schools would be actualized, and the taxpaying public would trust parents to pursue efficiencies and effectiveness.

Consumers, the parents on behalf of their children, would determine the needs of that school, and would NOT succumb to pressures of the self-interests of so many in the industry – catering to their own agendas and survival/growth/power “needs”.

That is how private and independent schools operate, so why shouldn’t public (government) schools follow the same principles?

As a young parent in the 70’s I quickly perceived that trustees and the whole machinery of the school board system was counterproductive to the hopes and aspirations of parents. I took advantage of a traveling government commission to express my disappointment with large school districts and trustees overseeing large populations. Attending board meetings did not help parents in individual schools.

I was flattered to have a member of the audience ask me for a copy of my brief. A few weeks later I was flattered to be invited to a dinner with the trustee association. It was not till years later that I had a “Eureka” experience, and realized I was being grilled as to my "dangerous" views and assessed as to my influence on others.

Also, I realize now that some of the very “helpful” and “friendly” officials who talked to parents at board meetings were probably “assigned” to keep tabs on parents and the groups they belonged to. In some instances these same people asked to be involved with our advocacy groups, whether it was for more attention to the basics or special needs.

I think it is detrimental to parent causes to have activist teachers and trustees shape briefs, letters, demonstrations, etc. Too often, naive and trusting parents become pawns in advocating for more funding, better working conditions for teachers, and on and on. They have been diverted from advocating for their children.

Public Education on Trial

Published by Tunya Audain May 16th, 2008 in Blog, Education Malpractice and Education Reform. 0 Comments

At the 1987 Future of Freedom Conference in California we discussed education malpractice. I was involved with pursuing the topic: Public Education on Trial.

Below are some excerpts from our brochure:

The world is very much as described in Orwell’s 1984.

However, on a small secret island, SANOS, live several hundred people, mostly of the libertarian persuasion. Having detected – as if in an unraveling Greek tragedy – the world’s inexorable, irreversible move to totalitarianism, these people hived-off, with few belongings, to this island. Perceiving the impossibility of resisting the inevitable, they resolve to be the “last man” – the guardians of the human spirit.

They live there quite peaceably. Only rarely, under great danger, do they make communication with the outer world, and only then to rescue some family member.

Very few in the outer world are aware of SANOS. However, an urgent appeal is received, and to the best of their ability to verify, it is a genuine appeal:

Help us to reverse, if possible, our self-destruction.

Have mercy on us.

We are losing the power of intellectual effort to even keep doublethink straight.

We will abide by your judgments and your controls.

The people of SANOS have convened a commission of enquiry to probe the nature of the problem and consider means for solution. The commission has narrowed-down the source of the problem to the public school systems in the outer world.

Having determined the source of the world’s self-sabotage, then the starting-point for reversal (if not too late) is this system – reform, restructure, dismantle ? ? ? The following “crimes to humanity” have been perpetrated by public school systems.

erosion of the family
dumbed-down public
killing the joy of learning
atrophy of democracy
growth of obscurantism & mystification
depletion of choice
habituation to experts
dependence on the state – the “free lunch”
economic sluggishness
reduction of individualism
destruction of voluntarism & good samaratinism
extinguishing introspection

“School has become the planned process which tools man for a planned world, the principal tool to trap man in man’s trap. It is supposed to shape each man to an adequate level for playing a part in this world game. Inexorable we cul;tivate, treat, produce, and school the world out of existence." – Ivan Illich, 1971

Our panel to discuss the problem included a Judge, a Prosecutor, an Anthropologist, a Philosopher, a Psychologist, and a Family Advocate. The responder was the Attorney to the School District.

First School Laws in North America

Published by Tunya Audain April 6th, 2008 in Blog and Parent Involvement in Schools. 1 Comment

At the National Conference on Parent Involvement in 1976 in San Anselmo, California we all received a bookmark in our kits with the following inscription:

The First School Laws in America (Massachusetts, 1642) embodied all the basic principles which underlie the American School System today. These are:

1.      Universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State.

2.      The obligation to furnish this education rests primarily upon the parents.

3.      The State has a right to enforce this obligation.

4.      The State may fix a standard which shall determine the kind of education, and the minimum amount.

5.      Public money, raised by a general tax, may be used to provide such education as the State requires. The tax may be general although the school attendance is not.

6.      Education higher than the rudiments may be supplied by the State. Opportunity must be provided at public expense for youths to be fitted for the university.

Criminalizing Home Education - California

Published by Tunya Audain March 12th, 2008 in Blog, Home Education and Parent Rights. 1 Comment

As a grandmother of the early home education movement in North America, naturally I was concerned about the recent court ruling in California which basically criminalized about 200,000 home schooling parents lacking teaching credentials. Hopefully, if it is not overturned by the Supreme Court, Governor Schwarzenegger has promised legislative remedy: "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education.”

I am very impressed by the extent and depth of feeling and outrage expressed by supporters of home education. But, I am disappointed at the hostility and shallowness of those who are opposed, either out of self-interest (teacher unions) or basic intolerance. (Just Google California home schooling ruling…)

It is because this case even came up in 2008, and because the hostility and threat can be reasserted at any time, that I would like you to read my publication in 1987 which was useful in two ways: 1) to encourage home educators, and 2) to put the education establishment on notice about the legality and imperatives driving this movement. In the article I quote John Holt as saying:

Today freedom has different enemies. It must be fought for in different ways. It will take very different qualities of mind and heart to save it.”

Published in a prestigious educator magazine — The Canadian School Executive – the article carries weight to this day, often quoted.

My history in home education goes back to 1972 when, after being credentialed from a Teachers College, I traveled with my children to Mexico to study under Ivan Illich of deschooling fame.

There I met with John Holt. He knew I had two young children with me, ages 3 and 5, and asked if I would be enrolling them in school soon. I said I might educate them at home.

He thought this was illegal, but I said I found from my readings at Teachers College that the “otherwise” clause in most Education Acts allowed it.

He then commented that at least I would be qualified to do it, having obtained a teaching certificate. Again, I enlightened him with the fact that this was not a requirement.

He then posed the thoughtful but predictable question about socialization, and we chatted about the various community opportunities available and the negative aspects of socialization that parents wanted to avoid.

His parting comment was: “Smart City!”

Using his mailing list which he had used to encourage education reform, he soon embraced home education and in 1977 started a new publication, “Growing Without Schooling".

Meanwhile, Dr. Raymond Moore was spreading the word (The Family Report) amongst his mainly Christian audience and paid frequent visits to Vancouver, especially when we held Home Learning Fairs.

You can download the article: Home Education: the third option which helped validate the movement and to see issues of 20 years ago reappearing today……

(See this article under Home Education)

Educator Opposition to Evaluation — a Long History

Published by Tunya Audain February 11th, 2008 in Blog, Abolish School Boards and Obstacles to Reform. 0 Comments

Continuing to archive material from my files, I came across this letter to the editor deploring lack of proper evaluation in schools and a preponderance of teachers on school boards. Notice the mood being described. Parents and public want concrete information about the achievements (or otherwise) of their schools. But the response is more PR – public relations. In today’s scenario the teachers union is actively campaigning in the press and with parents to withdraw students from FSA (fundamental skills assessment in reading, writing and numeracy) in Grades 4 and 7 in public schools and provincially funded independent schools.

Feb 25, 1981

Globe and Mail

Dear Sir:

Parents, students and taxpayers are the losers when evaluation is not routine in our schools. We must begin with the premise that if anything is worth doing, it is worth assessing. So, why is education exempt?

Not only are teachers and administrators opposing evaluation of their own performance (G&M, Feb 23, 1981), they are also opposed to testing of students. There is presently, in BC, considerable lobbying by teacher groups against standardized tests, with the feeble suggestion that teachers should design their own tests.

But, the majority of teachers have little experience, training or inclination to prepare tests. Nor should we expect it. While checking and feedback are part and parcel of everyday teaching, evaluation of the broader effort is best measured by objective, unbiased means.

There seems to be an ominous defensiveness surrounding the whole area of student and teacher evaluation. What is there to hide? Is there a cover-up? This reluctance to assess results and effectiveness is probably the number one reason the public education system suffers credibility problems today.

To further blur objectivity regarding schools, we see more and more teachers becoming trustees, thereby eroding the democratic principle of public control of public education. (Need I say that part of trustees’ jobs is to ensure competency of school staffs and effectiveness of instruction?)

In BC we have had provincial testing of basic subjects for a number of years, but it is disappointing to realize that the testing is provincially referenced and has little comparative value against Canadian norms. In the most recent round of testing of reading, our own school district, though scoring well, felt the tests were themselves inadequate. Inflation of scores (making the students look good) was the perceived result since many of the questions were ambiguous, irrelevant to the skills tested, and some were downright too easy.

Poor, watered-down tests (or no tests at all) are not the way to go if parents are to be assured that they have enrolled their children in good schools, that students are not being cheated of their education, and that taxpayers are to be convinced that their money is well-spent. So far, educators have failed to convince me that evaluation is detrimental. Surely, quality is possible to demonstrate, especially at a time when there is so much concern about rising educational costs and people are questioning their support of such a high expense service.

Parents sending their children to the University of BC for their first year are not happy to hear that their son or daughter stands as much chance of failing as of passing their English composition test. The controversy that this year’s record 46% failure has unleashed is showing no abatement, with as yet, little agreement over the source of the problem or the means for solution.

However, we are grateful that we have at least one concrete measure of school success (?) that helps focus concern and problem-solving. We do NOT have, as the United States does, the kind of reputable testing programs which caused Dr. John Goodlad (a Canadian educator, now working in the U.S.) to question parents’ misplaced faith in American schools After completing a massive 7-year study of U.S. education this is what he said:

I don’t think parents are as acutely aware of the achievement decline as many other people are….I think there’s an enormous unawareness on the part of parents as to what the schools are doing.” (Christian Science Monitor, June 9, 1980)

Is this the kind of evidence we are being steered away from in Canada?

Unfortunately, when dissatisfaction about schools surfaces, the response is for more PR – public relations – rather than black-and-white evidence. What I find happening is that parents who are denied concrete information about their children’s school success, and who are denied meaningful voice in their schools are responding in a way which is telling indeed – flight rather than fight. Frustrated parents are looking for exits from the public education system and are pleased to find attractive alternatives via private schools, correspondence courses or home teaching.

My message is this: If the public school system does not respond intelligently to consumer need for accurate information, they may find themselves without consumers.

(letter not published by G&M)

DECEITS IN EDUCATION

Published by Tunya Audain January 30th, 2008 in Blog, Obstacles to Reform and DECEITS in education. 0 Comments

The education systems I follow – Canadian, American, and UK – are so ponderously top-heavy on the supply-side of education economics that they can only survive from toppling over by using complex, interlocking schemes that deliberately and successfully thwart reform efforts from the demand-side (the customers). Having usurped the rightful “property” and duty of parents and teachers, they cling to power and influence by deceitful methods.

There are probably 101 DECEITS that impede effective education. I will start listing a few and you can add others.

We aim for a classless society. Yet, by denial of choice in education, poor or disadvantaged students are prevented from overcoming limitations and leave school with deficient skills for quality life, work, or further education. Lack of choice frustrates social mobility. Equality of opportunity applies to the rich who can buy private education or move to catchment areas where schools respond to articulate customers.

Look at the array of obstructionists that prevent CHOICE mechanisms from operating (magnet schools, charter schools, vouchers, open access….) and you start to see a good picture of those vested interests that benefit from a monopoly, state supply system.

We have civilian governance of education. That is, trustees, are elected from the community to ensure that schools are run for the benefit of the students and not the providers (teachers, administrators, teacher educators, etc.) Yet, how many trustees do we see that are themselves educators, ex-educators, or ex-teacher union leaders with hidden agendas? And, they are quickly trained and domesticated to follow the dictates of the administrators. Some simply exploit this experience as an opportunistic stepping stone in pursuit of higher political aspirations.
High costs of education are mainly due to teacher salaries. Yet, is this true? Compute all the overhead and subsidiary costs of the system. Factor in top dollar salaries of administrators and the rest of this bureaucratic empire. Don’t forget the costs of lawyers who are always on call in case of disputes. And, don’t forget the costs of Public Relations experts, conflict resolution experts, facilitators…..
Parent involvement is very important to boost student achievement. Yes, research supports the correlation between student achievement and parent involvement, yet the current waves of soliciting more parent participation results in only more fund and fun-raising activities – not academic attention. Furthermore, whole industries of “parent involvement practitioners” are spinning off of this fad, further providing jobs for unemployed education PhD’s, adding more layers of “experts” and further mystifying parents and keeping them at bay.
Education enables young people to be self-sufficient adults. However, the rising tide of mediocrity and dependency arising from “illiterate” grads is troubling. In some populations over 40% of students are drop-outs, leading to underemployment or dependence on welfare.

The poor economic performance in France and Germany is blamed on the education systems which prepare students for government welfare (“Learning to Love the Dole”) more than they do for entrepreneurship or productive employment. See: Europe’s Philosophy of Failure here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

Home Education Endorsed as Reducing Socio-economic Disadvantages

Published by Tunya Audain November 15th, 2007 in Blog and Home Education. 0 Comments

“Canadian and American Policy makers should recognize the ability of parents to meet the educational needs of their children at home, without government involvement,” says Claudia Hepburn in the 2^nd edition of Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream (Fraser Institute, Oct. 2007).

The 24 page research document is worth downloading free from:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/Homeschooling2.pdf

I was a pioneer in the movement in the 70’s and 80’s and devoted considerable energy and effort to jumpstart parent confidence in home educating their own children in Canada. The above report refers to my article: Home Education: The Third Option .

“It has been argued that home schoolers serve “as models of economy and effectiveness” (Audain, 1987). Such realities suggest that both Canadian and American policy makers should consider whether or not home schooling parents, whose property taxes subsidize public schools, merit reduction in those taxes or some other recognition of their contribution."

BUT, the important finding in this latest report is the value of home education to improving academic performance of students from families with low levels of education.

“Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do….evidence clearly demonstrates that home education may help reduce the negative effects of some background factors that many educators believe affects a child’s ability to learn, such as low family income, low parental educational attainment, parents not having formal training as teachers, race or ethnicity of the students, gender of the student, not having a computer in the home, and infrequent usage of public libraries."

All this supports my long-held belief that parent involvement in the substance of education (not the current vogue of using parents as volunteer labor in schools) is what matters. Both parents and students thrive in co-educational settings. Family efficacy is increased. Parents are not made to feel inadequate as is so often the case in interfaces with public schools.

See the news release: Home schooling improves academic performance and reduces impact of socio-economic factors: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4933

“Indoctrination” Laws and Guidelines for Schools

Published by Tunya Audain October 13th, 2007 in Blog and Education Reform. 2 Comments

The Gore Global Warming controversies re: truth or otherwise of his film, books, speeches, etc. has at least exposed a lot more food for thought. To me, the most important outcome so far has been the revealing of the existence of anti-indoctrination legislation in the English School Act, 1996. How many of our School Acts in the states, provinces, countries have similar sections, and if not, why not — given present politics in schools?

Section 406 of the Education Act says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid…the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school".

And if political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, the authority, the governors and the head are required by Section 407 to take "such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that…they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".

The High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Burton, stated that "there would have been a breach of sections 406 and 407 ….but for the bringing of these proceedings… ". He awarded two-thirds costs against the Government. At least one can be grateful that in England there was an Act and courts to provide some remedy to the parent who brought this case forward (Mr Stewart Dimmock) however costly it was to him. Society benefits when captive audiences of students in schools are presented balanced pictures of controversial issues.

The Judge did NOT forbid the showing of the film ( as was hoped ) but did required amended guidelines to apply:
1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

I will try and determine how many of our 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada have "indoctrination" laws and guidelines.
Can we try and get a world picture?