Learning Communities

A learning community of reflective practitioners must focus on three core issues. First, practitioners must ensure students learn. That is, learning, not teaching, must be the focus. Second, a culture of collaboration, where practitioners feel safe to explore issues is key. Third, practitioners must focus on the results of both the collaboration and the learning outcomes (DuFour, 2004). In addition to improving personal professional competency, teachers serve as role models for students in ways of collaborating, and as part of a learning community, jointly focus on students who are experiencing problems. Feeling less isolated and more energized, they explore new teaching behaviors and new technologies (Stevenson, Duran, Barrett, & Colarulli, 2005). More than community-mindedness, a learning community of reflective practitioners must be purposeful and action/result oriented, not merely cooperative but collaborative (Santos & Hammond, 2007). When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will rise. However, the rise or fall of the professional learning community concept depends not on the merits of the concept itself, but on the commitment and persistence of the educators within it (DuFour, 2004).

 

 

Although I attempt to maintain an open mind on issues and have developed a broad frame of reference over my professional and personal life, there are always points of view I haven’t considered. By accessing others’ perspectives, I am forced to grapple with issues within a larger context. This process enables me to develop a more fulsome understanding and consequent approach. Moving forward into the teaching profession, I must expand on my community. That is, as a classroom teacher it is crucial that one’s learning community include peers and students and parents and others in the community. Through this collaboration, the energies, minds, and perspectives of all stakeholders in a child’s future are at hand. In the result, my efficacy improves; my students are better served by my presence.

 

References

 

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community?.
     Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

 

Stevenson, C. B., Duran, R. L., Barrett, K. A., & Colarulli, G. C.
     (2005). Fostering faculty collaboration in learning communities: A
     developmental approach. Innovation Higher Education, 30(1),
     23-36.

 

Santos, I., & Hammond, M. (2007). Learning community or
     community-minded learning group?. Journal of Internet Commerce,
     6(2), 51-72.

Communication and Technology in the Classroom

When used as an electronic bulletin board, an edublog provides a fast, efficient means of communication between classroom teacher, students, and parents. Edublogs can also be used as an instructional resource to extend classroom learning. Finally, edublogs can be deployed as collaborative tools where students and their teacher can work together, online, to teach, learn, and demonstrate knowledge (Ray, 2006). Collaborative literacy, through technology, enables students of mixed-ability to leverage their strengths. Specifically, with respect to writing, students collaborating through technologically tend to identify new strategies for accomplishing new tasks, often performing above the specific expectations for the project (Boling, Castek, Zawilinski, Barton, & Nierlich, 2008). When utilizing technology with which students are already familiar, and which increases task efficiency, students tend to become engaged in the learning process. The flexibility, ease of access, and speed of use of communication technology enables students to gain confidence to start to frame problems in their own way, seek solutions on their own, use their own methods, and make their own mistakes (Allen & Dutt-Doner, 2006).

 

Two key advantages I see in the deployment of technology to enhance communication between classroom teacher, student, and parent are the extension of the classroom and the engagement of students. In the same way that a school can be the centre of a community, the classroom can be the centre of a student’s life. That is, technology can serve to enable learning by allowing teachers, students, and their families to access much more information and knowledge than would otherwise be possible. The caveat for the classroom teacher is that he or she must frame that information in such a way that it is useful and meaningful. Supportive and collaborative interaction in this broader classroom, through the use of technology, becomes “on-demand”. That is, teachers can “push” and students and their families can “pull” when and where they choose. This flexibility enhances differentiated instruction and, when done well, leverages each student’s learning style.

  

References

 

Allen, S. M., & Dutt-Doner, K. M. (2006). Using digitized documents in
     the classroom. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 66-67.

 

Boling, E., Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., Barton, K., & Nierlich, T.
     (2008). Collaborative literacy: Blogs and internet projects. The
     Reading Teacher, 61(6), 504-506.

 

Ray, J. (2006, Summer). Welcome to the blogosphere: The educational use
     of blogs (aka edublogs). Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42, 175-177.

Teacher Subject-Matter Knowledge

Teacher subject matter or content knowledge informs more than the instructional approach in the classroom (Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2005). Understanding central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline are crucial for integrated unit and lesson planning. In order to develop authentic cross-curriculum links, classroom teachers are required to have sufficient content knowledge of the subject being taught in order that they may identify opportunities for cross-curriculum linkages (De Nobile, 2007). Further, through integrated unit planning, classroom teachers are able to create more authentic instructional and learning strategies which serve to consolidate student learning and develop higher level thinking skills in their students (Davis & Simmt, 2006). Finally, teachers possessing subject matter knowledge are better able to interpret idiosyncratic student responses, prompt multiple interpretations, trace misconceptions, and plan rich learning experiences for students (Davis & Simmt, 2006).

 

The process of unit planning using a “backward” planning approach has helped me to develop a structured thought process which in turn has enabled me to evaluate more critically, my choices for lesson content, teaching and learning strategies, and assessment methodologies. That is, by establishing a curriculum linked culminating activity and then planning a unit of study backward, from that point, forces me to analyze each intended student outcome and develop teaching strategies and lesson content which will bring the student to that point. From a constructivist perspective, the unit planning activity also enables me to develop rich learning experiences for students by facilitating an integrated approach to unit development. That is, the planning of an integrated unit allows for multiple subjects to be woven into the plan. This integrated unit plan then provides more authentic classroom experiences for students, and in turn, a more efficable approach to teaching.

References

 

Davis, B. & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing
     investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know.
     Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293-319.

 

De Nobile, J. (2007). Primary teacher knowledge of science concepts and
     professional development: Implications for a case study.
     Teaching Science – the Journal of the Australian Science
     Teachers Association, 53(2), 20-23.

 

Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’
     literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to
     preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2),
     266-296.

The Positive and Negative of Being Assessed as a Student

As a student, the bulk of my experience has been positive both with respect to the process of learning and the demonstration of that learning. That is, I’ve been successful as a student and performed well on assessments of my learning. However, my experience of those assessments has been mixed. Specifically, I am aware that my performance while being formally assessed has not always been reflective of my learning.

There are three key aspects of assessment which determine the efficacy of the assessment. Namely, the validity, reliability, and authenticity of the assessment instrument influences the utility of the assessment both with respect to assessing student learning and teacher efficacy. In my experience, the nature of many of the formal assessments I’ve been subjected to, especially teacher-made assessments, have been undermined by ease of design, administration, and grading considerations.

For instance, the assessment of experiential learning of a manual skill with a paper and pencil formal assessment seems counter-intuitive. In this example, it seems likely that what is being assessed is the ability to articulate the nature of the skill rather than demonstrating the acquisition of it. Similarly, the selection of the appropriate text book quote on a multiple-choice science test seems to test the memorization skill of the student rather than whether the student has learned and can apply the scientific subject matter.

In my experience, when assessments do not really measure what they purport to measure; do not consistently measure the same thing over time; and are not based in the real application of knowledge, the assessor risks gathering spurious data with respect to student learning and/or teacher efficacy. One common flaw teachers fall victim to, with respect to formal assessments, is because the construct of the assessment is fact-based and relies on student recall to answer questions, students can memorize enough facts to perform well on the exam without having really “learned” anything.

Formal assessment, however, should be (and I think in my experience in elementary and secondary school, largely was) only one piece of data. Teachers must be informed by both formal assessment data and their own modes of informal assessment. Together, these data should be consistent. Consistent data across modalities of assessment assists teachers in validating their assessment methodologies. Inconsistencies in these data bring light to possible issues that the teacher can investigate and rectify.

My most positive experiences with respect to being assessed have involved both formal and informal modes of assessment coupled with different approaches to assessment – not simply paper and pencil “tests”. Further, assessments that employ higher levels of thinking (i.e., synthesizing) have contributed to the positive experiences I’ve had. A well designed, broad assessment methodology is informative to the teacher with respect to assessing student learning and their own efficacy. A well designed, broad assessment methodology is also instructive for the student with respect to helping them to understand their own learning and how they might improve.

Philosophical Problems Associated with Home Schooling

Home schooling is the practice whereby school-aged children, rather than attending public or private schools, are educated at home, typically by their parents/guardians. Home schooling allows parents, who so choose, to provide their children with an alternative educational environment. It also provides parents the ability to opt out of the public school system for practical or personal reasons (Wikipedia, n.d.). The philosophical problem with home schooling relates to the idea of a child’s open future and his or her future autonomy rights. That is, as a child, one is not competent to make decisions today which will have an impact on one’s life going forward. As a result, the child must be protected from that incompetence today in order that the child might fully develop their potential and thus have an open future.

Compulsory public education is the state’s attempt to protect a child’s right, held in trust, to an open future. This right has been recognized in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is read into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Generally speaking, parents who choose home schooling for their children do not dispute the child’s right to an open future. Rather, these parents question whether the state has a prior right over the parent of a child to determine what an open future for their child means.

From the state’s perspective, protecting a child’s right to an open future is directly linked to the idea of future autonomy rights of the child. That is, the child should be prepared now in order that they may exercise autonomy in the future. Future autonomy is the child’s ability, in the future, to make their own choices about what they wish to pursue; what interests them; what they do not wish to pursue; what holds no interest for them.

From this perspective then, education must be more than a positional good aimed simply at facilitating economic participation. Education must also be focused on creating good citizens. Part of creating good citizens is fostering the ability in each individual to flourish. Human flourishing concerns itself with the pursuit of a good life. In order to pursue a good life, one must have the capacity to do so. This capacity comes from exposure to different conceptions of “the good” and the autonomy to make decisions to accept or reject those conceptions. That is, this capacity includes both the ability to understand and accept different ideas and conceptions of the good and the ability to understand and reject these different ideas and conceptions. Exit rights are key to the exercise of true autonomy.

The philosophical problem with home schooling now becomes two-fold. The first problem relates to whether a child’s parents/guardians or the state should direct that child’s education. The second problem relates to whether the state’s view or the parents’/guardians’ view of how to ensure a child’s open future and future autonomy rights should take precedence.

The answer to these problems is probably “yes” on both counts. A child spends some six hours per day, five days per week in a public school. The balance of their time is spent at home, or at least outside of school. This creates an opportunity for partnership in the education of a child. By withdrawing a child from public school, parents deprive that child of the peripheral education that occurs in a public setting. Socialization and the building of social skills; exposure to other points of view; exposure to other lifestyles and beliefs all occur within a public school but outside of the formal curriculum. Although many parents who home school attempt to offset these deficits through having their child participate in community activities outside of the home, the microcosm of the child’s community that exists within a school setting can not be replicated.

Parents/guardians choose home schooling for many reasons. These reasons may be well intended but are not always altruistic. Many of these reasons (i.e., faith, personal beliefs, political views) ultimately serve the purposes of the parent/guardian. That is, because the parent/guardian doesn’t agree with some aspect of what is happening at the school or with the curriculum, they choose to have their child drop out of that society rather than help them to understand the nuances, differences, or opposition they are facing at school.

By dropping out of the school community the child’s capacity to flourish becomes narrower. Notwithstanding a parent’s/guardian’s world view and open-mindedness, the viewpoints and materials to which a child is exposed at home is by definition much narrower in scope than that of a public institution with an broad base of input that is situated in a community of people and influenced by the experience and resources of the state.

Moreover, the quality of education delivered and the accountability of a parent for that education in a home schooling situation is much less stringent than that of a public school. So then, from a comparative standpoint, the parent/guardian has created a situation whereby they have no real way of knowing whether their child is prepared properly for further education. This is important because many, if not most, home schooled children at some point enter the public school system – whether at high school or community college or university.

This phenomena brings up one last question. That is, what would the true motivation for a parent/guardian to remove a child from public school be when in most cases they will re-enter the public system later in their education, either by choice or necessity (i.e., college or university in order to at least acquire some skill set necessary for economic participation).

I would suggest that the underlying motivation for most parents/guardians to home school is not to facilitate their child’s right to an open future and a capacity for autonomy. Rather, I would suggest that the motivation lies in the parent/guardian wanting to protect or shield their child from something with which the parent/guardian either disagrees with, is scared of, or doesn’t understand. Further, I would suggest that these parent’s have unwittingly undermined everything they purport to be interested in, namely, the quality of their child’s education.

Although there is a critical role to be played by a child’s parents in that child’s education, they are not in the best position to dispassionately and objectively protect their child’s right to an open future. Going back to Aristotle, the ideas of a liberal education and a collective or community of learning have been cornerstones for human flourishing. Creating the capacity to evaluate alternatives, think critically, and make choices in one’s best interest in the pursuit a good life require a broad perspective and a tolerance for ideas which simply can not be provided for or duplicated in a home schooling environment.

Character Education in Public Schools

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers” (Socrates, 5th century BCE).

Whether or not Socrates actually uttered this lament, it is a constant refrain heard from adults about the youth of the day, throughout the ages. Certainly in the recent past, the likes of Elvis Presley’s hips, the Hippie movement, John Lennon’s “Jesus” reference, heavy metal music, and Britney Spears (say no more…please) are all symbols of a youth culture in “decline”. Is this actually true? If so, is that decline worse today than it has ever been? And if so, what should we, as a society, do about it? And finally, if we should do anything about it, what role does the public school, as educators of youth, play?

It is difficult to say in absolute terms that the character of today’s youth is in anyway in a worse state than it has been at any other time in history. Certainly today’s youth challenge the mores and folkways established by their forebears. This behaviour, I would suggest, is no different than it has been within the context of previous generations. That is, the specifics of today’s youth culture may be unique but the general propensity toward this behaviour is not.

This state of affairs, however, does not mean that there should not be an attempt at providing guidance, models, and an understanding of what it is to be of good character; a good person; to possess and act on a set of values. The issue is, whose definition of “good” shall be used?

The idea that a set of universal truths, values, or conceptions of the good exists is problematic. Certainly the exemplars of this idea of universality (i.e., Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hobbes) each posit something that approaches universality, but nuances in emphasis and definition persist. This problematic seems to suggest that one cannot distill a universal truth and that a relativist approach to character and morality is therefore necessary. If this is the case, the culture bound nature of relativist thought makes adaptation to a multi-cultural society troublesome.

The Catholic school system in Ontario seems to have an advantage in defining and executing a role in character education. By virtue of their constitutional ability to deliver a faith-based curriculum, they have the ability to deliver direct instruction on character, virtue, values, and the like. As well, they have the ability to weave these ideas into content areas of instruction. The result, in its best case, is the creation of a “culture” within the school that is consistent with these ideas. The public school system in Ontario has a much more difficult time defining and executing its role in character education because of their secular mandate.

The resultant response by public schools (admittedly in some Catholic schools too, but arguably less so) has been consistent with today’s societal response to almost any conundrum – commodification and medicalization. That is, student behavioural issues are medicalized (i.e., ADHD, LD) and the remaining character issues are commodified. In an attempt consistent with other public institutions, public schools adopt the prevalent business models in response to pedagogical issues as they undertake the “business of education”. Most common is the attempt to incent students to good character (among other things) with extrinsic rewards systems. This approach has created consultants who sell these systems. School boards are attracted to these approaches because of their ease of implementation. Further, these approaches give teachers something tangible to point to when discussing their interventions with parents. They are easy to count and therefore give numbers to administrators with which to convince their public constituents that they are in fact doing something.

These approaches, I would suggest, are wrong-headed. First, extrinsic reward systems (regardless of application) almost always result in short term changes but rarely in long term maintenance of those changes. Second, characterizing values and good character as something discrete that can be taught in a 36 minute lesson and then evaluated is, on its face, absurd.

Although I don’t think character education can or should be taught as a discrete subject in public schools, nor do I think a school can or should attempt to incent some approximation of good character behaviour, I do think there is a role for the public school in building good character in its students.

The model, I would suggest, is the Catholic school system. That is, the proper goal of the public school ought to be the creation of a culture of virtue and character. The distillation and adoption of some approximation of the exemplars discussed earlier ( as imperfect as they may be) in the way the school is administered and the way expectations of both students and staff are articulated may be useful. The key here is the staff – the classroom teachers. The manner of lesson planning, class discussions, and their own modeling is a much more efficable approach to character development than the examples highlighted earlier.

But what if school is the only place that good character appears to be important? I would suggest that the public school is a “prime mover” in the society. That is, within the society, public schools can and do influence the qualitative nature and course of that society. As such, schools must concern themselves with the character and values of their students. They do this by building the capacity for critical thought; the exposure to different conceptions of the good; creating problem-solving ability; discussing the vagaries of today and the constants over time. Character and values are woven into this activity. This occurs whether the school intends to do so or not; this occurs because classroom teachers are human and bring to the classroom their own conceptions of the good; their own character and values. The challenge is to ensure that these classroom teachers are “intentional teachers”. That is, teachers who purposefully create lessons and learning opportunities for their students which enable human flourishing and build capacity for true autonomy.

Ultimately, the notion of character education in public schools should be dealt with in the same way as patriotism. That is, as part of human flourishing and autonomy, the public school must undertake to present different conceptions of the good; what it is to be of good character; what considerations underpin the idea of a value system; what it is to be virtuous. In doing this, the public school builds the capacity in each student to choose what they consider to be “right”. This capacity to discern what is right will serve them well in their lives as they confront situations not contemplated in their “Good Character 101” class.

Are problems regarding social status and educational opportunity unique to the U.S.?

In order to determine the affect of social status on educational opportunity in Ontario, it is instructive to examine educational outcomes. According to D. W. Livingstone (2007) at OISE/UT, the most recent data available suggests that 60% of white students from a professional/managerial upper middle class family attend post-secondary education, whereas, only 10% of black students from low socio-economic working class families do so. This disparity suggests that there does exist a link between social status and educational opportunity in the Canadian/Ontario context.

Educational opportunity can be defined in terms of access to education and student engagement in the educational experience. In contrast to the U.S., public school funding in Ontario tends to be more universal and equitable, at least in absolute terms. The issue of access to schools in Ontario is not so much related to the physical resources of the education system, but rather access to the curriculum by students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. That is, students generally are not impeded from attending school and receiving text books, etc., but attendance is not access. The impediment students from lower socio-economic backgrounds (which tend to include visible minority and recent immigrant populations) face relates to the under-representation of these groups in the common curriculum. This issue of access to the common curriculum influences student engagement.

At the most fundamental level, lower socio-economic students can face challenges meeting their deficiency needs (i.e., physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem) which in turn has a negative affect on their ability and readiness for knowledge acquisition (Malsow, 1968). Although some attempt has been made to offset these challenges (i.e., lunch/snack programs) they nevertheless persist.

Beyond the issues of poverty and safety, more insidious factors are at play which conflate to create a discriminatory system which reduces student engagement and in the result, educational opportunity. Key among these issues is the tendency for lower socio-economic groups to be under-represented in the curriculum, the resultant responses from public schools, and teacher efficacy.

First, the common curriculum in Ontario has largely ignored minority groups with respect to both design and delivery. In the result, there is an absence of cultural relevance for students from lower socio-economic groups. That is, their history is absent, as are their cultural touchstones. More than this absence is the over-representation of the white, European, experience. These two factors act to frustrate these students’ ability to connect with the curriculum. By way of analogy, this issue of cultural relevance is the same issue that has been identified with IQ testing. IQ testing was found to be culturally biased which caused skewed results – a disproportionate low scoring of lower socio-economic group members. If a student is attempting to solve a math problem involving yachts, tacking, and wind speed and does not know what a yacht is or why one would tack, it presents a barrier for that student to even get at the problem being discussed.

The suggestion to create “black-focused” schools in order to find ways to include under-represented groups in the curriculum met with widespread public condemnation. This response smacked of segregation, said the pundits. However, both the pundits and the general public agreed that a problem existed (Livingstone, 2007). This same issue arose in the recent provincial election with respect to funding faith-based schools. That is, there is general agreement that a disconnect exists between the common curriculum and the multi-cultural society it purports to educate. The issue seems to be related to what to do about it. Perplexingly, what has been done about it seems to have exacerbated the problem.

As a result of the failure of students from lower socio-economic groups to engage in their education, public schools have seen a high percentage of students with literacy and numeracy difficulty; a high drop-out rate; and a disproportionate rate of poor academic performance relative to their peer group. In response, public schools have adopted social promotion, reduced expectations in secondary grades, grouped students by ability (streaming) and then ungrouped them, which only blurred the issue. In almost every case, students in secondary school experiencing academic difficulty began to experience difficulty in elementary school – more specifically, in the primary grades. The root cause of the problems faced by lower socio-economic groups manifests very early – the response by public schools should manifest likewise.

Finally, the “mainstreaming” of special needs students has resulted in the allocation of special needs funds to the regular classroom. This has resulted in a concomitant pursuit of these resources by both parents and teachers. Further, the advent of the “learning disabled” diagnosis has opened a door for both teachers and parents to pursue the same goal but for arguably different motivations. In any event, there exists a disproportionate representation of lower socio-economic groups with the learning disabled label and its attendant special funding. Parents pursue this funding in order to access assistance for their child in order to improve academic performance. Teachers are incented to identify students who are challenging to teach as learning disabled in order to relinquish responsibility for their own efficacy and place it on the special needs resources.

As Kozol (2005) comments, there are expensive children and cheap children. Those in lower socio-economic groups tend to be expensive children – expensive insofar as they tend to attract special funding but more so because they require the system to adapt to their needs, and it takes great effort to do that.

It turns out that, like common sense, the common curriculum is not all that common. Although the tone of the issue may be different than in the U.S. the result is the same – educational opportunity is not equal for those from lower socio-economic groups. As Livingstone (2007) comments, when only 10% of students from black families of lower socio-economic status attend post-secondary education it seems like a huge waste of time. I’m sure they’d agree. In fact, that’s the problem.

The legal and philosophical problem associated with public funding for parochial schools.

Sandra Feldman observes that:

For religious schools, public scrutiny and accountability raise issues of religious freedom; the deep infusion of religion throughout their curriculum and lessons is essential to them, as is their freedom to require children to attend religious services. They don’t want state interference in any of that. Yet, accountability to the broader public must go along with public funding (as cited in Brighouse, 2006, pp. 79-80).

This underpins the problematic of publicly funding parochial schools. That is, as an emanation of the state, publicly funded schools must be publicly accountable, both in terms of how that funding is spent, but also, in terms of how the institution is conducted. The operation of state institutions is a public matter and subject to scrutiny in the public domain. Matters of religion, in a free and liberal society, are private matters which have no place in the public domain.

Insofar as public schools (i.e., schools that are publicly funded), as part of a just state, are concerned with autonomy and human flourishing (and all that that entails), the issue becomes how to reconcile this role with the sometimes conflicting articles of faith parochial schools weave into their approach to education. The Ontario Catholic school system – which has been fully funded since 1984 – is both illustrative and misleading on this point. In the Marc Hall case (Hall v. Durham Catholic District School Board), the Catholic school system was forced to grapple with their position on homosexuality and society, through the state, was forced to grapple with the appropriateness of publicly funding parochial schools. As it turns out, the court employed some semantic gymnastics in order to avoid dealing with either of these issues.

However, the tone of this case brought to the fore a risk associated with the public funding of any institution, that is, self-preservation. From an economic perspective, once public funds are used to support an institution in society, that institution becomes influenced by the incentive to maintain that funding. Institutional decisions then become subject to a (intra- or extra-organizational) political/societal test which heretofore was not appropriate. When this happens, the oversight by the state of one if its funded institutions requires that the institution fall in line with respect to its conduct. In the Hall case, the requirement was to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation pursuant to the Human Rights Code – even though Catholic teaching considers homosexuality wrong and abhorrent. This is not necessarily bad. That is, this influence is appropriate in order to protect the role of the public school with respect to the notion of fostering autonomy and human flourishing. The philosophical question then, is, “What is the point of publicly funding parochial schools if the funding undermines the raison d’etre of the parochial school in the first place?”

It seems the answer to that question, in the Canadian/Ontario context is political expediency. Since 1867, Roman Catholic schools have been a bete noir for politicians. They were protected (and grouped with dissentient schools – which is interesting) at the country’s founding because it was politically expedient; they were fully funded by then Premier Bill Davis because it was politically expedient; and the issue (as seen in the last provincial election) is loathe to be dealt with by politicians because to do so would not be politically expedient. In the result, the Ontario experience can be misleading. That is, parochial school funding exists in Ontario for reasons not necessarily associated with a public policy decision that parochial school funding serves the state’s role in fostering autonomy and human flourishing through its public school system.

So then, can a nation evolve? When America and Canada were founded, the society was very much concerned with faith – in terms of godliness and virtue. Both countries wove the ideas of God, moral good, and living virtuous lives into the institutions and symbols of state. In fact, educational leaders in both countries considered public education and faith to be inextricably linked – one of no use without the other. The mores and folkways of both societies have changed since that time. Whereas, in Canada in 1867, it was considered discriminatory to exclude Roman Catholic education from the constitution in order to protect minority rights, is it now discriminatory to maintain its protection to the exclusion of multi-cultural/religious minorities in Canada?

Probably. The public policy test to determine whether an institution should receive public money ought to be the same, that is, “Does this institution serve the public interest?” It is not good enough that the institution does no harm. It must be an instrument in the furtherance of the public interest which notably includes the protection of (all) minority rights. By way of comparison, the public health care system deals with publicly funded health care delivery for all citizens. Should a citizen wish to be treated by the laying on of hands, they may do so – but the state will not fund that faith-based activity. The public judiciary deals with matters of law for all citizens. Should a citizen wish to observe an article of Sharia, they may do so, so long as it does not contravene an article of public law. In this same way, the public school must be concerned with the flourishing of all citizens. Should a citizen wish to receive education in the Torah, they may do so, but the state should not fund that faith-based activity.

One’s faith, and all that it entails, is a personal matter – something an individual grapples with and makes decisions about. There is no place for the state in matters of individual faith; what one chooses to believe or not; what one’s conception of the good is. Likewise, public schooling is a public matter. There is no place for one faith in deciding what is right; defining one conception of the good; limiting autonomous choice.

Because both state-based oversight of faith-based organizations and faith-based oversight of emanations of the state are anathema to the public interest and because the interests of each can be intractable, reconciling the two can be a zero-sum activity. In the result, it is difficult to make the case for publicly funding parochial schools. The just state must concern itself with social justice and equity which in turn require it to find public policy solutions where accommodations can be sought for all interested parties – not just those with a statistically significant voter base.

Philosophical Problems Associated with Patriotic Education

The definitions of patriotism tend to include the love of, devotion to, and defense of one’s country. The idea of patriotism seems, in its most common uses, to have a prescriptive connotation. George W. Bush’s comment, “you’re either with us or against us” seems the most base use of the idea of patriotism, but I think this example is illustrative of the idea (and not just the American idea) of patriotism and its risks.

Nick Tate’s observations (as cited in Brighouse, 2006, p.99) that discussions of national identity and patriotism can be associated with nationalism, xenophobia, and racism highlight the risks facing educators who grapple with whether and how to teach patriotism in the classroom. That is, within the context described thus far, patriotism in the classroom tends to relate historical events as artifacts in furtherance of the national mythology. Nash (as cited in Brighouse, 2006) describes this in the American context as the idea that patriotism will flow from the belief in America’s superiority and her occasional falls from grace as detours from the ongoing flowering of freedom, capitalism, and opportunity. In this context, when history is viewed and presented through a more objective and truthful lens, it is by definition unpatriotic. Similarly, when current events are described and debated through this same lens, it is viewed as descent. Descent is, according to George W. Bush’s definition above, “against us” and therefore unpatriotic.

Patriotism is a social construct who’s aim seems to be to bind a nation’s people through a set of touchstones who’s purpose is to communicate the national heritage. Through these touchstones, the people of a nation, who have chosen to participate in a community governed by a set of laws, administered under a common political structure, and participating in a common economy, define their shared experience. This shared experience contributes to the definition of the culture and provides a sense of common identity, notwithstanding ancestry.

The philosophical problem associated with teaching patriotism in public schools has to do with the nature of patriotism, as described above, and the proper role of the state and its agents – in this case the public school.

As part of a just society, the state itself must be just. In order for the state to be just it must come at its role from a position of legitimacy. That is, as Brighouse (2006) puts it, in order for the state to receive the consent of the governed to be governed, that consent must not have been manipulated. By enlisting public schools to teach patriotism the state is arguably manufacturing consent among the governed. Again, George W. Bush’s administration provides an extreme example. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush’s “for us or against us” ultimatum, coupled with the patriotic requirement to “support the troops”, the characterization of America as liberators (read superior) of Iraq, all conspired to silence any descent within the nation. This manufactured consent lasted for years as the invasion of Iraq continued to be wrapped in patriotic messages.

The idea of teaching patriotism in the classroom and the concept of manufactured consent presents a further philosophical problem for public schools as it relates to its proper role of protecting a child’s right to an open future. That is, the idea of teaching patriotism in the classroom equates to proffering one view of what it is to be a citizen. In its extreme form, one can draw parallels between teaching patriotism and teaching one religious view; one philosophical view; one view of the good life. This runs counter to the state’s role to protect the future autonomy rights of each child. As examined in my home schooling reflection, in order for a child to exercise future autonomy rights, he/she must be properly prepared to do so. Part of that preparation occurs in the classroom where a multiplicity of views should be examined. Children must be exposed to a variety of views in order that they may choose between them at some future point in time. The teaching of patriotism in this context is akin to indoctrination of the child and undermines the state’s role.

The public school, as an agent of the state, is obliged to attempt, through its curriculum, to teach, as much as is possible, a balanced view within the social sciences generally, and the nation’s history in particular. As part of that view, the polemic of why and how events transpired should be explored in a balanced and objective manner. The public school is obliged to prepare each child to participate as a citizen in the affairs of the nation. This is achieved by fostering an understanding of the institutions and mechanisms which operate within the society and an ability to think critically about how and why they operate the way they do. I would suggest that meeting these obligations and teaching patriotism in the classroom are mutually exclusive.

The ethos of a nation is properly made up of the collective views of its citizens. The ability to challenge the status quo is fundamental to the development of a nation. Again using America as the pre-eminent example, descent, public discourse, and the principles of democracy have been fundamental to the nation from its inception. These ideas, I would suggest, have been the major drivers of the multi-faceted success and dominance America has achieved. This achievement has come exactly because of the exercise of autonomy in the thoughts and beliefs of its citizens. In fact, the failures of America (i.e., McCarthy, Vietnam, Iraq), I would suggest, have come as a result of the invocation of patriotic sentiment to the exclusion or silencing of critical thought and discussion.

In order to answer the philosophical problems associated with teaching patriotism in the classroom I think it is instructive to examine the result of patriotism. As described above, the invocation of patriotic sentiment manufactures consent which undermines the legitimacy of the state and alters the character of the nation. Real patriotism can not be taught. Love of, devotion to, and defense of one’s country is a choice made by each citizen; a choice made by the exercise of autonomy.

I would suggest that the answer to the question of whether patriotism should be taught in the classroom is, no. What should be taught in the classroom is the manner through which one develops autonomy; the manner through which one develops critical thought; the manner through which a citizen chooses to become a patriot.

Wait to Fail: Learning Disabilities, Reading Failure, and Response to Intervention

Abstract

A response to intervention (RTI) methodology for both identification and remediation of students with learning disabilities (LD) and who are at-risk for reading difficulty is a highly efficable pedagogical approach that can be employed by classroom teachers. RTI integrates increasingly intensive intervention at three tiers of instruction. Student opportunity to learn and quality of instruction are two variables requiring additional research in order to be operationalized within the RTI construct. The classroom teacher, by using RTI, is better prepared to advocate for a student to be identified as LD and at-risk for reading failure, or not, as a result of the data gathered through this methodology. This approach reduces over-identification and facilitates a more efficient use of special needs instructional resources.

Wait to Fail: Learning Disabilities, Reading Failure, and Response to Intervention

A response to intervention (RTI) methodology for both identification and remediation of students with learning disabilities (LD) who are at-risk for reading difficulty or failure is a highly efficable pedagogical approach that can and should be employed by classroom teachers on a school wide basis. Further, this approach should be employed as an early identification and intervention strategy in order to remediate reading difficulty in a student with LD and offset the potentially devastating affects reading failure will have on a student with LD over the course of their lives (Coyne, Zipoli & Ruby, 2006, p.166).

Following, is an examination of the literature respecting students with LD at-risk for reading difficulty or failure, the efficacy and utility of a response to intervention approach to remediation of this risk, how this approach might be employed in the school setting, and suggestions respecting next steps in the research.

Background

LD can be defined as a disorder that affects the acquisition, retention, understanding, organization or use of verbal and/or non-verbal information (Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, n.d.). One of the most prevalent types of academic difficulty facing students with LD is reading (Smith, Polloway, Patton & Dowdy, 2004, p.138; Lindsey & Kerlin, 1979, p.60).

Historically, IQ-achievement discrepancy assessments have been the most frequently used method for identifying a student as LD and at-risk for reading failure (Smith et al., 2004, p.142). That is, comparing IQ scores of individual students against expected performance exemplars, relative to normative peer group data, in order to determine if that student is LD and at-risk for reading failure. The weaknesses of this approach are twofold: the assessment occurs at one point in time and norm-referenced assessments have inherently low reliability (Smith et al., 2004, p.144).

Identifying students and targeting preventative intervention, based on a one time, universal screening result, leads to over-identification of students at risk for reading failure (Goodman & Webb, 2006, p.59). Further, this assessment has been typically administered within a “wait-to-fail” context. That is, assessments have tended to be undertaken at the end of third grade. By this point in time, students experiencing reading difficulty almost never become good readers (Coyne, Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001, p. 69; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007, p. 139). As well, a lack of reading competence and fluency at this point in time places the child at risk to ultimately drop out of school (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007, p.138).

Research indicates that difficulties with reading may impede the development of language, knowledge, and vocabulary skills. This phenomenon is referred to as the “Matthew Effect”. This is the notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or, in this case, the wait-to-fail model contributes to increased severity of global academic difficulties for students in later grades (Dunn, 2007, p.32; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lisey, Roberts, 2001, p.5; Lindsey & Kerlin, 1979, p.60), as reading ability becomes more critical in content-area instruction (Lindsey & Kerlin, 1979, p.61).

Emergent and long-term reading difficulty in most children are caused primarily by experiential and instructional deficits rather than biologically based cognitive deficits (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small & Fanuele, 2006, p.167). That is, most reading difficulty can be remediated through the provision of experiential and instructional interventions. IQ-achievement discrepancy assessments do not control for a student’s pre-school or educational history (Vellutino et al., 2006, p.157). This deficiency furthers the case for an alternative assessment and identification methodology.

With respect to early intervention, students identified as at-risk for reading difficulty in kindergarten, who received some form of intervention, generally performed better than those who did not on measures of emergent literacy skills. Further, these students were found to be no longer at-risk in first grade and beyond (Vellutino et al., 2006, p.168). Finally, students identified as at-risk for reading difficulty who were difficult to remediate (i.e., did not respond at the same level as their at-risk cohort) were found to have weaker cognitive profiles than either their at-risk cohort or the normally achieving cohort (Vellutino et al., 2006, p.168). This further suggests that, with respect to LD and at-risk for reading failure identification, students may need to be differentiated and targeted for intervention in different ways (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p.138; Kauffman, Gerber & Semmel, 1988, p.6).

The Case for Response to Intervention

As a method for identifying students with LD at-risk for reading failure, RTI affords the potential for both early identification and intervention. As such, RTI represents an efficable alternative to IQ-achievement discrepancy assessments (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs & Bryant, 2006, p.405). RTI integrates increasingly intensive intervention at (typically) three tiers of instruction. Each tier employs assessment to identify students who are not responding adequately and require intervention at the next, more intensive, tier (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006, p.621).

At the primary/junior level, RTI typically begins as instruction in the regular classroom. Students who fail to respond to this universal core program of instruction move to the second tier of intervention. This second tier employs scientifically valid and reliable small-group tutoring instructional programming. Students who fail to respond to this more intensive instruction move to the third tier of intervention, typically individualized programming targeted at the unique needs of the student (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006, p.621; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007, p.16; Dunn, 2007, p.32; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p.138).

The benefits of RTI include identification of students using an at-risk rather than deficit model, early identification of and intervention for students with LD, reduction of identification bias, and a strong focus on student outcomes (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p.140). Further, at the tier-two stage of RTI, should the student fail to respond to intervention it can be assumed that the student possesses an intrinsic deficit or disability that prevents the child from benefiting from instruction (Davis, Lindo & Compton, 2007, p.32; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p.143). This improves a school’s ability to accurately identify LD students and target scarce special needs (tier-three) resources more efficiently (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2001, p.4; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007, p.15; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006, p.622).

Suggestions for Future Research

There are two important determinants of student success: opportunity to learn and quality of instruction (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007, p.45). Evidence suggests that the locus of teacher efficacy (i.e, the extent to which a teacher believes he/she controls the events of the classroom and can produce desired learning outcomes) can be negatively influenced by a withdrawal versus full inclusion model for teaching students with special needs (Goodman & Webb, 2006, p.67). More study with respect to the influence of student withdrawal on both over identification and teacher efficacy would assist in buttressing the case for implementing RTI .

In order to further enhance the identification and intervention efficacy of the RTI model for students with LD at-risk for reading failure, further research is required to determine the effects of teacher quality and reading curriculum appropriateness, both of which have been shown to contribute to reading difficulty in primary grades (Compton et al., 2006, p.407). Further, the influence of the student’s home environment as a determinant of risk for reading failure should be considered. There is consensus that factors such as number of books in the home and familial history of LD have an influence on LD and reading failure risk (Davis et al., 2007, p.37; Dunn, 2007, p.34). These factors require further study in order to be operationalized within the RTI model.

Application in the Classroom Setting

Establishment of long term reading goals across grade levels and intermediate performance benchmarks employed school-wide with frequent student monitoring and reporting, coupled with coordinated and differentiated instructional interventions, will increase the efficacy of RTI implementation at the school level (Coyne et al., 2001, p.69). However, the RTI methodology offers several benefits to the individual classroom teacher. Following, is an examination of how RTI might be applied in the primary classroom, by the classroom teacher, and how the resultant data might be used.

A key issue the classroom teacher must grapple with is not only whether students are learning, but whether they are learning “enough” (Coyne et al., 2001, p.70). In order to determine whether students are learning enough, the classroom teacher can determine where students need to be with respect to reading skills at the critical point of third grade. From there, the classroom teacher can map expected progress back through each grade to kindergarten, thereby establishing milestones for each grade and point in time within a school semester (this is, of course, done in addition to other planning activities employed by schools and school boards).

At this point, RTI methodologies may be employed at the beginning of the year in order to establish baseline data for each student in the class. From there, the classroom teacher monitors each student’s response to instruction over the first few weeks of the semester. That is, performance against expectations is gauged in order to ensure each student is progressing adequately (tier-one). If and when the data demonstrates inadequate response to instruction, the classroom teacher must intervene (tier-two).

At tier-two, the teacher may have a group of students who have failed to respond to instruction. This group can be targeted, still within the classroom setting, for intervention. The classroom teacher would employ validated and reliable instructional programming for this group. This type of programming is typically available within the school or school board or can be purchased by the classroom teacher (this programming might include reading recovery or corrective reading products).

In terms of employing tier-two strategies, the research suggests that a cooperative learning (CL) model can be as efficable as individual instruction at this point in the intervention (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002, p.116) – and would fit within the pedagogical approach currently employed by most school boards in Ontario. Further, using a CL approach decreases the amount of time the classroom teacher needs to attend to the group and can be incorporated as a differentiated form of instruction within the regular classroom setting, thus increasing the chances of success and the ability of the classroom teacher to employ the approach.

The classroom teacher then monitors the group’s progress. Again, should some students fail to respond to instruction at tier-two, the classroom teacher must intervene. At this point, however, the teacher would collect and correlate the data generated at tier-one and tier-two for the student. This data then becomes the basis for the teacher to bring this student forward to the School Based Resource Team (SBRT). At this point, the student’s performance is reviewed and further tier-two recommendations may be made. Once all efforts at tier-two have been exhausted the SBRT may recommend referral to the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

At the IPRC, the classroom teacher would have all data from tier-one, tier-two, and the SBRT with which to make the case for an Individual Education Plan (IEP). In conjunction with IPRC members, and the student’s parents/guardians, recommendations for specific special needs programming and resources may be made, or not. The key here is that the classroom teacher has driven the process from early identification and intervention while collecting data throughout. It is, as a result, more likely that any identification of the student at this point, and any attendant special needs interventions, will be more efficable than might have been the case without the use of the RTI methodology.

References

Ardoin, S. P. (2006). The response in response to intervention: Elevating the utility of assessing maintenance of intervention effects. Psychology in Schools, 43(6), 713-725.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394-409.

Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C. (2001). Prevention and intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 62-73.

Coyne, M. D., Zipoli, R. P., Jr., Ruby, M. F. (2006). Beginning reading instruction for students at risk for reading disabilities: What, how, and when. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 161-168.

Davis, G. N., Lindo, E. J., Compton, D. L. (2007). Children at risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 32-37.

Dunn, M. W. (2007). Diagnosing reading disability: Reading recovery as a component of a response-to-intervention assessment method. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 31-47.

Fore, C., III, Boon, R. T., Lowrie, K. (2007). Vocabulary instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of two instructional models. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 49-73.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 621-626.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lisey, M. W., Roberts, P. H. (2001, August). Is learning disabilities just a fancy term for low achievement?: A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, DC.

Goodman, G., Webb, M. A. (2006). Reading disability referrals: Teacher bias and other factors that impact response to intervention. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(2), 59-70.

Jenkins, J., O’Connor, R. E. (2001, August). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, DC.

Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., Semmel, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 6-11.

Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (n.d.). LDAO definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.ldao.ca/what_are_lds/WorkingDescription.php.

Lindsey, J. D., Kerlin, M. A. (1979). Learning disabilities and reading disorders: A brief review of the secondary level literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(6), 55-62.

McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 107-117.

Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Dowdy, C. A. (2004). Teaching students with learning disabilities. In Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings(5th ed., pp.134-177). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vaughn, S., Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing additional instruction for students at risk. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 40-46.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.