Originally Posted by dingbat

Goodness. I wonder how generations of Brits coped with writing prior to age seven before the life-span theory hit the road running? I was writing clearly by the age of six and those older than me (fifties and early sixties babies) usually did so without any major traumas, effort or stress. We just did what we were taught I guess. By the way I have a PGCE. It taught me way more than how to write a lesson plan. In fact it helps me teach* the army of semi-literate, worldly ignorant grade 11 kids my daughter goes to school with. :rolleyes:

* teach as in open their eyes to the world outside and heaven forbid make them think critically, a skill that is acquired through...reading...articulate discussion...writing and observation. These skills are distinctly lacking in the three BC school districts I have put my children through.

Originally Posted by Tom Masters

It is good to know that other provinces do the 4 year B.Ed. I agree with most of what you have said regarding optimal times for learning etc. and I am certainly not in favour of pushing kids before they are ready to learn. That just creates a lot of stress for teachers and students alike!

However, each child is different and each child is ready to learn more formal reading and writing skills at different times. While I agree that pushing children to do these things from a very early age isn't the answer, I don't think that holding everyone back until the age of 7 is the answer either. This is where differentiation comes in. My daughter is ready to start writing and she is 5 and a half. Some children are ready sooner, others aren't ready until later. However, as she is only in school for 2 and a half hours a day there is not much opportunity for her skills to be developed. I volunteer in her class and believe that her teacher is missing out on lots of potential in her class. She could probably do more if she had EAs but in Ontario EAs are only used for safety issues now. In the UK, I had two EAs in my early years class.

At the end of the day though, I agree that children in both countries are able to do well in school if they have the necessary back up from their parents and the motivation/ability within themselves.

Originally Posted by jlw

You won't find them here either.... that would imply that they can read! :p

Originally Posted by jlw

I wasn't suggesting that every child wait until 7 to read and write, only that if it wasn't happening by the age of 5 or 6, there is no need to panic or suggest that a school (or system) is failing. In the end, they will all get there.


Differentiation is a wonderful thing however is hard to monitor in large classes, as you well know. The reason why countries like Finland are tops in the tables is due to that. Finnish teachers can enjoy classes of 13-15 students and also are not constrained to standardised testing. Finland demand that their teachers are well trained (6 years +) however put alot of faith and freedom in their hands. Both Canada and the UK could learn from that!

Originally Posted by jlw

I have had 7 student teachers from there in 5 years and feel strongly that the one year programme does not adequately teach what is needed in order to be an effective teacher. One year is simply not enough.

Originally Posted by Tom Masters

Ditto. I feel the same way about the one year B.Ed degree that Ontario teachers take. I was also stunned to realise that applicants are not even interviewed to see whether they have the potential to become effective teachers. :scared:

Originally Posted by jlw

They are interviewed here, however any fool can get in. We had an amazing concert violinist in our school last year on the PCSE programme. She was sweet, highly talented, and knew about 25 words in English! She tried to write what she was saying on the board, but of course couldn't spell either. Frightening. Why was she allowed on the programme in the 1st place?

I find it very worrying that many provinces are dropping the 4 year B.Ed. in favour of the one year "top-up" course. Canada is going in the wrong direction. Do you know that only one in three students with a PGCE will ever step into the classroom once they gain their certification? While many of these people must have discovered they didn't enjoy it, I suspect that many of them didn't enjoy it because they were not adequately prepared.

Originally Posted by Tom Masters

It is worrying that more provinces in Canada are opting for the one year course. I think the Finns have the right approach!

Originally Posted by jlw

And by the way, just because it was the "old way" does not mean it was the best way. We've learned alot since then about learning.

I don't know where you got your PGCE but it couldn't have been the Institute of Education. Despite its good reputation, it fails to do anymore than what I have said, which is to provide experience in the classroom and develop lesson planning. I have had 7 student teachers from there in 5 years and feel strongly that the one year programme does not adequately teach what is needed in order to be an effective teacher. One year is simply not enough.

Originally Posted by dingbat

I am not sure I could learn Finnish or Swedish :D

Originally Posted by jlw

Agreed. The area of the school can make such a difference. My colleague sends her child to a local school which happens to be one of the best state primary schools in the UK. By the sounds of it, the students at this particular school are doing things that I have never dreamed about! Interactive "smart" boards are widespread, which enable students to touch the massive whiteboard and have highly interesting, interactive lessons in maths and science. The school puts on a full musical every year and hires professional west end actors to coach the leads. They visit the best museums and galleries at least twice a month. I could only have fantasized about this as a child!

The problem with the UK is inconsistency. That school is special. The ones I have taught in are far from that, and one pays an extra £150,000 to live in that catchment area. It is amazing how a house on one side of the street is £500,000 and the opposite side is £700,000 +. It's all about the catchment area.

My school is not great. It is far from those standards! The sad thing is that I could never afford either of those houses. I would be lucky to rent a flat in the right catchment area.

Originally Posted by Tom Masters

Your colleague must be married to someone who isn't a teacher to be able to live in an area where the 'cheap' houses are 500,000 pounds! :D

Our children's primary school in Reading also used the interactive smart boards, power point etc. It was one of the best in the area although we didn't live in a house nearly as expensive as the ones you mentioned. :scared:

I have to admit that I was very envious of my friends when they described what was happening in my children's old school when I first arrived in Ontario. I felt like I had gone back in time. Over here I find most schools to be very dark (very few windows) with little in the way of decent display work in the corridors. The teachers mainly use markers and large pieces of paper along with the occassional black board to teach. However, I try not to dwell on these things as my children are happy and I am, in the main, happy with the education they are receiving.

Originally Posted by jlw

Wow! Markers and paper with occassional black boards? That really is the dark ages! I was an itinerant band teacher before moving to the UK and seen the insides of a great number of elementary schools. The ones in Saskatoon were all really nice and had excellent facilities and were bright and airy. The displays were very impressive too. The school I grew up in was dark though. I think the buildings built from the 50's though the 70's tend to be that way.

When I lived in western Canada, we often heard through the teaching grapevine that things in Ontario were tough. At the time, the provincial government of Ontario were trying to pass through legislation that would allow non-teachers to teach in schools. (This would obviously save them $, as they would not have to pay them a teacher's salary.) Did that ever go through?