Meaningful work and love make the world go round

I love the internet, not all aspects mind you, but there are some that show real promise. One is Wikipedia.  For me, Wikipedia represents humanity's liberation from ignorance. It's a guarantee that the Royal Library of Alexandria will never again be destroyed and books will never again be burnt.

I'm sitting here with a box of Kleenex and a late winter cold feeling ever so slightly sorry for myself but then I think, well I have this wonderful blog.  Even if it can't clear my nose, it helps clarify my thoughts.

After a conversation with a friend this week, I've started to think about what gets me out of bed in the morning.  There was a time when it was hard to get out of bed. Perhaps I had depression; I was younger then.  But I do know that over the years something has changed in me and the watershed moment came when I had surgery for cancer.

This is going to sound so strange but having cancer was good for me.  I'm not saying it wasn't very painful and I'm not saying that cancer isn't devastating for many people but for me, it was a real wake-up call.

When I was sick, people I hadn't seen for years visited me, sometimes travelling hundreds of miles to visit.  It was just great to see them!  And my sons were wonderful too.  The eldest took over all the day-to-day arrangements and my youngest sat by my bedside to get whatever I needed.  I felt so fortunate to not only see everyone but particularly to witness my sons blossom into good men.  Of course, when I was better, there was a bit of regression but still.

I can picture the boys by my bed when I awoke from the surgery.  These two hulking giants, one is 6'5" and the other is 6'3", standing over me looking down.  It was comical, like we had switched places.  Do you know the Robert Munsch book, "Love you Forever"? Like that.  And they said in unison, "Mom, it's so good to see you."

There is something truly magical about knowing that you're loved but sometimes we don't really know until there's a crisis.  Love gave me an incentive to get out of bed after the surgery because I didn't want to worry the people who love me. I think this helped me heal faster and I only missed one school board meeting, on the actual day of the surgery.

It was interesting that my sense of time also changed.  Sure, I had realized that time is limited and that I should try to make the most of it.  But I also came to appreciate that I generally do whatever I can in a situation and usually find a solution.  This realization allowed me to trust enough to know that I can undo most mistakes and this gives me permission to live in the moment.  

To go back to an earlier question about motivation, http://pamfitzgeraldottawa.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-value-of-volunteering.html, if I were to have a conversation with Daniel Pink today, I might say yes, you have it right in most ways but it's not quite complete.   By the way, here's a great RSA Animate video to help explain Pink's ideas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc. 

So let's peel back Pink's onion a little more.  As sufficient income gives creative workers the ability to forget about money and concentrate on work, so love coupled with meaningful work gives the inspiration to be present in the moment and truly observe what's going on around us. Through this presence of mind, we can become more creative.

Living in the moment has been a great gift.  And if I can give a gift back, I hope you enjoy this video of children singing "What a Wonderful World", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddLd0QRf7Vg.  Cancer may have taken away a part of me but it also allowed me to live in the present and gave me a better sense of love.  It was more than a fair trade ... and I laugh a lot more.

The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.

Secrecy and negotiations

Like the rest of you, I know nothing about negotiations going on between the government and union representatives.  But for this one time, that's alright by me ... with a couple caveats.

During this past year, Dalton McGuinty wrote the textbook on how *not* to engage in negotiations.  This included a YouTube video where the premier tried to do an end run around teacher representatives to speak directly to teachers. I managed to find this video today but now it has *interesting* subtitles added.  Here it is for your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgCYhxmhx3A.

A year ago too, the government brought lawyers into the talks who tabled a take-it-or-leave-it offer.  Some negotiations.  Bill 115 was then passed shortly before the Kitchener-Waterloo by-election and it was used by the government to try and win both the by-election and a majority government.  And many of us wonder too if there wasn't some subtle messaging conveyed to representatives of the English Catholic union, OECTA, to get the agreement that set the groundwork for Bill 115?

There is a reason why real collective bargaining is held behind closed doors.  This gives each side some time for sober second thought and an opportunity to back away from a position without losing face.  When talks are in public, negotiators can become caught having to defend a position they might want to move away from later.  In public, there can be little give-and-take.

Negotiating experience, both inside and outside the education sector, tells me there has to be some honest dialogue between sides to reach an agreement and this can only happen in private.  I'm willing to give the parties the benefit of the doubt for the moment with the understanding that they are only talking about legislation to enshrine collective bargaining rights and the framework for future negotiations.  If this is indeed the content of the talks, then I am in favour of discussions continuing out of the public eye.

Of course, only time will tell.  I hope the government and unions are making good progress so that a public announcement can be tabled soon.  It has been a hard year for everyone involved and further waiting takes its toll.  But let's all take a deep breath now and await the promise of spring.


The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.

Extracurricular activities -- then and now

My mother grew up during World War II and she often talks about her involvement in extra-curricular activities in high school, particularly about her prowess in sports.  She loved participating but feels it detracted from her studies.  After hearing these stories repeatedly, I strongly suspect that in fact my mother's teenage life was greatly improved by taking part.

Back then, extra-curricular activities only existed at the secondary school level and this was true for me too.  After school and particularly during summer months, we were mostly "free-range kids".  We explored undeveloped fields and woods.  We skipped rope or played hockey on the street or in the basement during inclement weather.  We bicycled to a local swimming pool and stayed for hours without any adults in tow.  There was some television but relatively little and we were mostly responsible for fashioning our own activities.

The formal activities that did exist for children were mostly organized by scouting groups, church, or community organizations such as the YM/YWCA.  Parents did not worry about their children's safety except to warn us about strangers.  In hindsight, perhaps they should have warned us about some of the adults we knew.

Over the years, I have seen numerous studies linking participation in sports or the arts to increases in student motivation and to improvement in student achievement. Sir Ken Robinson, an internationally renowned educator, makes this point and more in an excellent animated video, http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html.  And attuned parents know this just by listening to their children.  The real question is why have extra-curricular activities taken on such importance?

Today's parents are much more aware of children's safety, some would say overly concerned, and school is seen as a safe refuge for children.  This is one reason why extra-curriculars in elementary schools have flourished in recent years but there are others.  Let's take a moment to shine a spotlight on elementary school extra-curricular activities.

Most parents understand children need a well-balanced life that includes more than simple reading and math.  We all decry the loss of music teachers but it's not just the music teachers who have been dropped.  Rather it is music itself that has been pushed out of the curriculum.

In the last post, I addressed how curriculum content has become politicized and it is also crowded with programs and academic subjects that can be measured by tests, particularly EQAO tests.  As certain content is added by well-meaning educators and politicians, "the frills" are removed.  Music, art, drama, gym and sports are all seen as non-essential and so they reduced or shunted off as extra-curriculars.

Many parents and teachers know these activities are essential to normal child development and overall academic success so they look for other ways to provide them. Parents fund-raise to bring arts and music programs into schools and teachers organize activities after regular school hours.  They put in a lot of effort to replace what the curriculum used to provide.

Today's after-school activities also come with associated costs.  Children who participate come from families with the means to live in the catchment areas of schools with lucrative fundraising programs or from families who can pay school or private activity fees.  As well since school boards provide busing only at the end of the school day, participating children also need access to transportation to return home after activities.

As we try to understand the dynamics of the dispute, we should realize that secondary teachers have a long history of volunteering after school and they are more likely to see extra-curricular activities as a regular part of the job.  We should also acknowledge that the level of salary has a role to play.  Secondary school teachers are generally paid more than elementary teachers and because we often judge the value of work based on its compensation, this difference becomes a sore point for elementary teachers.

Most everyone agrees that children need the arts and physical activity to develop and to learn.  These activities used to be part of the school curriculum or they were a natural part of children's after school play.  What has changed is the content of the curriculum and the perceived need for supervised safe places for children to congregate. As a result, children's after school activities are now either run by teachers in the school or they are provided privately at costs only the middle class can afford.  Really it's not so much a question of elementary teachers curtailing extra-curricular activities; it's more that others have squeezed these important subjects out of the curriculum.



Next time ... Dreaming in technicolor -- what are the possible solutions?
The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.

Educational change and the political brain

I'm sitting with some teachers on a Friday evening and one of them, Federico, has been teaching for five years.  Fred is in his late twenties but could pass for a teenager.  He has on a red-and-white striped shirt and he looks like Waldo of the children's books, except for the darker hair.  Fred has a lovely smile, a twinkle in his eye, and lots of enthusiasm. His students adore him.

Fred says, "I haven't been teaching for long but in the time I've been here, I've seen many changes.  I mean there's the class-size cap and all-day kindergarten.  There are instructional coaches and literacy blocks.  There are school improvement plans and a push for improved EQAO scores.  And I've heard about a 90% graduation goal too.  Why so many changes?"

The more experienced teachers in the group look at me and shrug.  Where to begin?  So I try to explain, "Fred, let's order a beer." ...

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen on March 6 began with the following, "Believe it or not, psychological studies demonstrate that good guys make the most appealing political candidates." http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Ethics+power/8053326/story.html.  The editorial then talks about B.C. Premier Christy Clark but I suspect it could apply to any number of politicians including our former premier, Dalton McGuinty.

Even though I haven't seen these psychological studies, I believe their findings.  Why? Because I've seen the changes described.  There's something strange that happens when someone is elected to political office, to any office even school trustee.  People start treating you differently.  It doesn't matter if no one ran against you and you were acclaimed, doors open simply by virtue of holding office.

Doors open both figuratively and literally.  When I was first elected, people who had known me for over a decade immediately started calling me "Trustee FitzGerald."  They held the door for me and insisted I enter the building first.  Frankly it was unnerving.  I am all in favour of holding a door out of courtesy but not out of deference.  It's taken six years of saying, "My name is Pam." and holding the door for others to get things back to normal.

Some may say that I am demeaning the office but I believe respect should be genuinely earned and that all people merit human respect.  If it was limited to doors, it wouldn't be so bad but there's a pitfall to deferential treatment.  I started to describe this in an earlier post and it is well described in the editorial.  Power corrupts most everyone in subtle and not so subtle ways.  I've seen it in other politicians.  While trustees don't even have much power, I've still seen it in myself and in other trustees.  .

Some would-be politicians stand for office because they have higher aspirations but often people run to help right a wrong or to improve public services.  They're often motivated out of a sense of wanting to help others and there's nothing wrong with that.  But then they're elected and they hit the brick wall of political reality.  Most find that the wrong they wanted to right or the people they wanted to help are under the jurisdiction of others -- either under another level of government or a different agency, or the problem is administrative and under the auspices of bureaucrats or staff.

To their surprise, politicians find that the scope of their work is limited both by legislation and by the real or assumed power of others and that their work often consists of editing and approving legislation, regulations or policy written by others.  There are wonderful episodes of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" available online that help illustrate this, particularly the one entitled "The National Education Service."

As a result, there is frustration among politicians who do not wield much political power and it is up to the prime minister, premiers, mayors, or school board chairs to keep this frustration in check.  At the federal level, this is done through a party system that controls nominations, appointments to committees, or access to the prime minister.  At the municipal and school board levels, there aren't formal political parties but there are different constraints.  Still politicians at these levels are somewhat freer to vote their conscience or act.

What happens when politicians who have gone to a good deal of effort and some expense to be elected discover that they have little real power?  Well, many look for other ways to leave a mark and that is where the conferences and experts come in. Politicians attend conferences and hear about all the wonderful things happening in the field of education in, let's say, Singapore or Great Britain.  Of course, the experts are there to sell their ideas and they are unlikely to say anything that casts doubt on their program.  A politician who likes what he hears and who has some clout, let's say a premier, might have the ability to start discussions with the expert immediately.  Other less powerful politicians might try to think of ways to influence their colleagues to support the implementation of a new program.  This process is called leaving a legacy.

Let me say that many of the experts do have something tangible to offer.  There wouldn't be buyers if they didn't.  Professor Michael Fullan is a particularly successful educational expert who is well known for many of the programs that allowed Dalton McGuinty to fashion himself as the 'education premier.'  The problem is that there is a seemingly endless supply of educational experts and good programs but there are only so many hours in a school day ... with the following result:

• Change becomes the norm with an overall increase in stress for individuals and the system.
• The curriculum becomes heavier.  If educational experts show that children can read or learn calculus at a younger age, expectations are created that often create a new norm.
• The curriculum becomes more structured and standardized   As the curriculum becomes heavier, more information has to be taught in a shorter period of time.  Instructional methods are developed to do this and teaching flexibility and perhaps creativity are reduced.
• Other less-valued subject areas are reduced or removed from the curriculum. Perhaps history or geography is paired up with other subjects or embedded in other curriculum.  Perhaps the music class is gone or theatre arts time is reduced. Perhaps there is only one phys ed class requirement in high school.
• Often new programs are not fully funded.  As well, bureaucrats are needed to implement and monitor the changes and there may be a corresponding reduction or change in the roles of professionals or other school staff.

This is how we have come to have constant educational change -- experts have something to sell and politicians or even senior bureaucrats looking to leave their mark buy.  Students and teachers?  Well, their job is to accept endless change.

"So that is how we arrived here today or at least that's how I see it.  I don't think there's any blame involved.  It's simply about the dynamics of the system."

"But," Fred asks,"if you could, how would you change the system?"

I reply, "Fred, I don't think it's easy but there are two things that might help.  The first is to develop a better understanding of the problem and the second is that we should be careful when implementing change.  Every change should be rolled out as a pilot project first and over a period of time so that unintended consequences can be noted and addressed.

And we should recognize that we are working with children and their lives will be affected by our actions.  We should act with more caution and humility."


The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.

American schools and kaizen

Let's start with a cautionary tale, the school system of our friends south of the border. Many have stressed its reliance on testing but that's only one aspect and it should be placed in context. Sir Ken Robinson, the renowned educator, describes public education as an assembly line except that it's no longer simply the one of Henry Ford's vision http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html. Rather it's an assembly line on steroids and educational change has become constant.  If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be Kaizen, the Japanese word for continuous improvement.  

Besides student testing, the American educational system can be described as stressing accountability, standardization, skills-oriented, entrepreneurial-focused, computer reliant, and private-enterprise based.  It is championed and well-funded by Silicon Valley enterprises, charter school founders, union opponents, deschooling advocates, and various levels of governments throughout the U.S.  There is an interesting article on this topic written Audrey Watters, Hacking at Education: TED, Technology Entrepreneurship, Uncollege and the Hole in the Wall at http://hackeducation.com/2013/03/03/hacking-your-education-stephens-hole-in-the-wall-mitra/.

Why has there been such a broad rejection of public schools in The States?  I mean this is the educational system that created some of the brightest thinkers of the 20th century who in turn created the biggest economic juggernaut in history, found cures for many contagious diseases, and put a man on the moon.  But today, America is facing an overall sense of crisis (real or self-created?) and many Americans are looking for a fix to the problem and blame the inadequacy of their current educational system rather than perhaps a government and economy unable to produce jobs. A refrain often follows that society is crumbling because the kids don't have the skills needed to compete on the world stage. Then there is often some news story about how American kids can't find China on the map with the implication that Chinese students are doing better in school.

There's a temptation to simply reject this analysis out-of-hand but let's take a moment to understand why it resonates. Many American kids aren't doing particularly well in school. The 19th century school room is competing against 21st century electronics for students' attention.  And guess what?  The school room is losing as children's brains are rewired, restructured, by their constant use of electronics.  See the video by Sir Ken Robinson for details http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html.

As well, students' general knowledge has likely declined as music, art, drama, and even history and geography are reduced or taken out of the curriculum altogether.  There has been an increasing focus on literacy and an emphasis on teaching to standardized tests. Don't get me wrong. The ability to read is one of the greatest gifts we can give our children and it lays the foundation for most other learning.  But reading isn't all there is and if the kids can't locate China on the map, blame it on a narrowing of the curriculum and not on teachers or the kids.

There is also an aspect of the anti-elitist deschooling movement that rings true.  The amount of information available to researchers and academics has increased exponentially and this has pushed academic disciplines to become more specialized.  It's also led to an overall decline in general arts programmes with the result that there are fewer generalists who are able to knit together emerging knowledge into an integrated worldview.  And the focus on applied education has curtailed the development of creative people who can help conceive meaning in a chaotic world.  What many in the deschooling movement decry is an educational system that is top-heavy in the acquisition of information and specialized skills at the expense of overall understanding.

Finally, much of the recent technology really is useful to learning.  It has not only opened up the world of education to children with physical or mental disabilities who were traditionally marginalized from schooling but it has also opened up higher education to youth whose access was limited by geography or language. The technology can serve to extend knowledge to the broader community through tools such as Wikipedia and online courses, and Sugata Mitra's School in the Cloud  http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html.

The American educational system is seen to have a lot going for it so there tends to be a retrenchment rather than a questioning of the paradigm when student test scores decline. Since many American schools stand or fall on the basis of their test scores, schools that are seen as failing tend to move further away from music and art classes, move away even from recess, to make more time for literacy and test skill drills.

Perhaps Albert Einstein once said, there is debate on the source, "Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  Ultimately the problem with the American paradigm is that children are not the interchangeable parts of assembly lines http://pamfitzgeraldottawa.blogspot.ca/2013/02/complex-problems-and-germ-theory.html nor can they be mass produced particularly for a society that values creativity and knowledge as the means to survive economically. There are educational academics such as Sir Ken Robinson and Dr. Pasi Sahlberg who are beginning to articulate an alternative.  Perhaps it's almost too late for the American public school system but we in Ontario still have excellent public schools and we still have time to learn from America's mistakes.


There's more to come so let me take a moment to sum up where I think I am -- that is examining not only the current state of our educational system but also how we got here, why extra-curricular activity has become a lightning rod, and where we can go from here.  

The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.

Language decides who's boss

There are two uses for language, communication and miscommunication.

The communication part we recognize and it's what allows us to understand and co-operate as human beings.  But when professional and scientific disciplines develop their own words and acronyms, language may become grayer in meaning as illustrated in this delightful passage from Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorion Gray:

"What are you two talking about?" said Lord Henry, strolling over to the table and putting his cup down. "I hope Dorian has told you about my plan for rechristening everything, Gladys. It is a delightful idea. ... Names are everything. I never quarrel with actions. My one quarrel is with words."

"Then what should we call you, Harry?" she asked.

"His name is Prince Paradox," said Dorian.

Let's take a step back.  In principle, there is nothing wrong with professional language.  It allows for concise and precise communications between people in a given field.  And we generally prefer our physicians, for example, to be precise in their use of language.  There would surely be questions for any doctor who said, "Mrs. Jones, now don't you worry. We'll get that tummy fixed in no time."  Some of these may include: "Exactly what part is the 'tummy'?"  "How is it to be 'fixed'?"  And probably, "May I see your licence to practice medicine?" 

There are often times when the use of precise scientific language has its merit.  This holds true for acronyms that allow practitioners and professionals to speak about scientific concepts in short-hand.  It makes a lot of sense to call substances such as DNA and TNT by acronym rather than by the scientific nomenclature of deoxyribonucleic acid or 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene.

But what happens when scientific or perhaps even pseudo-scientific language limits access to meaning? An example often cited in this regard is the military's use of the term collateral damage instead of the linguistically honest civilian casualties but this happens in other fields too.

Technical language is at its most insidious when it obscures comprehension for people who have a personal stake in understanding.  When I was diagnosed with a less common form of cancer, there were various treatments on offer, all questionable in effectiveness.

To move forward, I wanted and needed access to the medical literature so as to make an informed decision. But the jargon that serves medical researchers in fact limited my access.  I had to become somewhat expert in the field before I could make a decision on chemotherapy.  And no, trusting the doctors was not an option when there was disagreement among leading cancer specialists as to the best course of treatment.

So it is with the field of education.  The many experts and consultants often bring their own language and acronyms to programs, services or curriculum and the result is often a hodgepodge of jargon.

The area of special education is probably the worst for acronyms.  As the duties for specialist teachers in the field change and their job titles shift, parents are left staring into a bewildering bowl of alphabet soup.  Often they have the mistaken notion that since the same person is going to be on the job next year, their child will receive the same services. These parents figure out sometime later that the change in job title made a difference for their child and that the change in acronym if fact signified a substantial shift in teaching methodology or teaching duties.  And as each expert brings additional spin or jargon to the field, the waters are further muddied.

When speaking to a friend recently, we came to the subject of critical thinking, a component of educational guru Michael Fullan's latest (and last?) foray in influencing Ontario's education system entitled, Great to Excellent: Launching the Next Stage of Ontario's Education Agenda (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/FullanReport_EN_07.pdf).  I mentioned to my friend that I had heard a public presentation delivered by an educational consultant on the topic and that to me, it sounded more like a lecture on deductive reasoning than on critical thinking.

To which my friend replied, quoting Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

Then he added, "I guess if I was master and could decide the meaning of words, I would make "critical thinking" synonymous with chocolate chip cookies!  Then everyone would come hear me present!"

So here it is in a nutshell -- Educators, often at a loss for conclusive scientific results to help guide their actions, frequently turn to the use of jargon or acronyms to help obscure and sell quasi-scientific methodology.


The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.