13 Comments

Teaching body argued a math proficiency test was “discriminatory because certain racialized teacher candidate groups were failing the test at higher rates than white candidates...[proving] the test was inherently racist.”

And if redheaded teachers had scored better, then the test inherently favoured gingers.

What utter nonsense.

Expand full comment

I'm a retired teacher. Against all common sense, at the time I was still teaching, up to 2009, we were forced to teach math using the "problem-solving" approach, and discovery math. No drill allowed. No repetition of skills allowed. I quietly did these things anyway. My class consistently out-performed the other same-grade class every year on board-wide math tests. It is not possible to apply higher level skills without internalizing thoroughly the lower level rote skills. Drill and practice worked for many dozens of years.

Expand full comment

This is good. Lots of good observations. I flagged your comment about flash cards to learning the times tables. Who would NOT use them? You absolutely have to know by rote a lot of math principles at the basic level, so you can apply them at a higher level without thinking too much. Who doesn't know this?

Expand full comment

And for the record, WHENEVER you are learning something, it often pays to learn the basics by rote, before you attempt to get creative with applying the knowledge. Even in university when studying calculus based Newtonian Mechanics I got very confused at first in studying relative motion until I simply adopted the rote formula my teacher presented, got good at applying it blindly, THEN started to really understand it, and then could apply it creatively. The rote memorization was essential.

Expand full comment

It's like saying young children should not be taught a language by rote by talking to them (i.e. everyone should remain silent around them), and hoping they will somehow pick up the language.

Expand full comment

If Critical Race Theory continues and people are hired and promoted based not upon merit but group identity, expect student scores/abilities and standards to decrease.

The govt seems to be afraid to change the growing influence of CRT and its powerful backers.

Expand full comment

I’m pleased with the higher Court decision for many reasons but one in particular:

Any jurisdiction responsible for determining who is qualified to obtain a teaching license should be free to set the standards of admission. In this case, Ontario was addressing declining math scores in children and instituted a testing regime to ensure that graduating teachers had the skills to teach math (to a level of Grade 9.)

This seems like a responsible way to improve the education of children. Isn’t that what we all want?

I note that the legal challenge was launched under the guise of equity, but teachers union involvement may also have contributed to this mess.

I suspect that this battle isn’t over yet, and ratepayers everywhere should be watching closely. It would be bad precedent to have the unions and special interest groups having the final say over the competency requirements to teach in our schools.

Expand full comment

Speaking of bad logic, the five reasons the author lists to oppose the test are half-truths or just wrong.

General rule: the more you know of your discipline, the better a teacher of it you will be. And that goes even for elementary levels - the reason 9 + 1 = 10 is because of polynomial notation. How many grade school math teachers know that?

Expand full comment