Some progressive educators are taking their anti-knowledge bias to new heights. In a recent blog posting, a teacher actually proposed that we redefine cheating. In this teacher’s view, students who cheat by using their mobile devices are merely being creative in finding their answers. She also argues that students who don’t like memorizing are being unfairly penalized by a system that fails to reflect to reflect their talents.

I’m sorry, but I still believe that cheating is wrong—even when the assignment isn’t as interesting as we would like. Teachers have every right to expect their students to put in an honest effort on their assignments. We would be doing a very poor job indeed of preparing students for the real world if we sent them the message that they can cheat whenever they don’t like the assignment.

Our book continues to attract a lot of attention in the media. Here is the link to recent interview that I did on the Bill Good show on 980 CKNW in Vancouver, BC.  In that interview, I made the case for more testing in the school system and making results on standards tests available to the general public.

The Association for Psychological Science released a major report that found that there is no empirical grounding for the idea that everyone has a particular learning style.

Apparently the studies purporting to prove the learning styles hypothesis did not use the randomized research designs (i.e. control groups that isolate the key variable) that would make their results valid.

Just when you think you’ve seen it all, another education official descends further into the absurd. Britain’s  Chairman of the Office for Standards in Education, Zenna Atkins, actually claimed that it was good for schools to have bad teachers because students can learn from them!
Check out the BBC story here.

Of course, this flies in the face of common sense. You’d think that the Chairman of the Office for Standards in Education, of all people, would make the case for all teachers reaching a certain standard.

In our book, What’s Wrong With Our Schools, we have a chapter called “Direct instruction is good teaching.” In that chapter, we defend direct instruction practices such as lecturing and note that, when done properly, it is a highly efficient and practical way to introduce new concepts to students.

A new study from the Harvard Kennedy School backs up our position. That study evaluated the impact of the traditional lecture style on the academic achievement of middle years students. Students taught by lecturing scored significantly superior on Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessments than those taught by in-class problem solving.

This does not mean that lecturing is the only method teachers should use. However, it does support our position that progressive educators are off-base when they disparage traditional teaching methods such as direct instruction.

Earlier today, I appeared on the Roy Green Show, a nationally syndicated Canadian talk show, to discuss  our new book, What’s Wrong With Our Schools.

The interview went very well and there was a significant amount of interest from callers. You can find the recording of the show here. Click on the podcast from July 4^th about education.

I will make another appearance on his show on Sunday, July 18^th, at 3:05 p.m. (central time). Our book is definitely attracting attention!

A recent study by Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy examined the impact of home computer technology on academic achievement. Contrary to the widespread assumption that more computer access benefits learning, the study found the exact opposite.

In their abstract, they state, “Using within-student variation in home computer access, and across-ZIP code variation in the timing of the introduction of high-speed internet service, we also demonstrate that the introduction of home computer technology is associated with modest but statistically significant and persistent negative impacts on student math and reading test scores. Further evidence suggests that providing universal access to home computers and high-speed internet access would broaden, rather than narrow, math and reading achievement gaps.”

This provides further confirmation of the concerns expressed in my report written for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy two years ago about the excessive emphasis on computers in schools.

The New York Times recently reported that an increasing number of high schools are selecting more than one valedictorian. Some schools have as many as 20 or 30 since they have decided that everyone with an “A” average gets to be valedictorian.

This is yet another example of the move away from excellence in public schools. Can you imagine what would happen if we ran elections the same way? Maybe Canada could have four co-prime ministers and the U.S. could have two co-presidents since everyone got lots of votes and worked really hard!

Like many unions, the Manitoba Teachers’ Society publishes a newsletter–The Manitoba Teacher.

In the June edition, there is an article containing two letters, one from Colin Craig, the prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and one from Pat Isaak, the President of the teachers’ union.

Earlier in May, Colin Craig published an op-ed in the Winnipeg Free Press in which he noted that while the number of students enrolled in public schools was decreasing, the costs of educating them were increasing substantially.

The op-ed was not disrespectful and Colin Craig’s claim is true as anyone who has looked at the FRAME Reports published by the provincial government knows.

Pat Isaak then invited Colin to visit a school to see what was going on.  I suppose she was convinced that he would change his mind about the cost of education if he saw all the good things taking place in classrooms.

In return, Colin Craig invited Ms. Isaak to spend a morning talking with taxpayers and then they would go to a school for the afternoon.

Surprisingly, in response, Ms. Isaak said:

“… I revoke my invitation to you to visit a school.  Students should not be subjected to someone with such a negative attitude about Manitoba schools and the work teachers do to prepare young people to be future citizens and taxpayers.”

Obviously, this statement is designed to close off debate, something that an excellent teacher would not want to do.

Can you believe that the president of the MTS would say that Mr. Craig has such negative attitudes that he is unteachable?  Has she said such things about students, their parents, or other citizens?

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Mr. Craig’s claim or his proposal.  It seems like a good idea for Ms. Isaak to meet some taxpayers and for Mr. Craig to talk with students and teachers.

I don’t see any disrespectful attitudes coming from Mr. Craig, and I don’t think that he was demeaning towards students, teachers, or the MTS.

In What’s Wrong with Our Schools and How we can Fix Them, we have a chapter titled “Teachers’ unions don’t always put students first”.

This shameful “put-down” by a union president provides more evidence that teachers’ unions often forget that they are educators, and that they must engage in fair debate with critical citizens and parents.  After all, taxpayers pay their salaries.

I hope Ms. Isaak changes her mind and listens to taxpayers for half a day and Mr. Craig goes to a school and talks with students and teachers for half a day.

Then, I hope each of them publishes an op-ed telling all us what they learned from their experiences.  Then, maybe both Mr. Craig and Ms. Isaak will change their minds.

Isn’t that what we want from our education system which is supported by taxpayers?

Check out this review of our book by Metro columnist Jon Ferry in today’s edition of the Vancouver Province. Ferry describes our book as ” refreshingly free of jargon and ‘edu-babble.’”