But first, lets lay some groundwork
    I would appeal to the teaching profession not to take this message personally. In no way am I attacking your desire to be professional in your calling. I will, however, question the route that got you or our education system to where things are today. Honest testing of US American and Canadian students indicate their students are at a severe disadvantage to students taught in other countries. The answers are many. In many cases, though, it is a case of beligerant ignorance or anecdotal assessment.
    "It's not a problem here so its not a problem anywhere!"
    In further installments I will explore several of the reasons why two of the so-called greatest nations in our world place so badly when tested. When they test well, the conditions under which the tests were conducted become highly suspect.

My daughter was excited. They were going to have their math skills tested and she knew she would place well. While her mark was among the tops in her class, she was disappointed. "Even the biggest dummies in class passed the test!" she said. "Our teacher spent the entire class before the test teaching what was on the test!" That year, Alberta was judged as having one of the best math programs in the country! Is there any wonder why? I wonder how many students could do so well a week later. (1993, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)

You may have comments of your own. I welcome them.

Public education started
with the Industrial Revolution.
    If countries were to capitalize on this revolution, they would need workers who could read instructions, write legibly and do simple arithmetic. These were the three R's — Reading, Riting and ’Rithmatic. And that was what the schools taught. Up until that time, education for the masses was a rare commodity. It was restricted to the rich and the religious as part of the student’s preparation for serving their religion.
    They certainly didn't teach students how to think, or how to question. Industrialists did not need workers who could think. They certainly didn't appreciate workers who would question — nor did the religious leaders, or the guys who profited from the entire process — the politicians!
    So, the most pronounced result of the revolution was an educated population, at least one that knew just enough to serve its masters. Education could best serve these masters by limiting its involvement to the 3Rs.
    By accident, or design, some major innovations were accomplished in this educational setting. They would do well if they were consistently with us today. Unfortunately, most of these advances are regularly sacrificed as greed and/or ignorance eliminates them from our classrooms.
    Similarily, early discoveries relating to the best age to introduce an activity were carelessly discarded as educational goals were trumped regularly by personal interests that had nothing to do with educating children.
    For example, it has been known for centuries that the best time to learn additional languages occurs up until the age of six or seven. With only rare exceptions, we still insist on waiting until students are 13 before introducing a second language — long after the language learning neuro-mechanisms have departed the human brain.

When elementary schools started to buy-in to the latest in technical innovation by installing personal computers in 1990s classrooms, high school typing teachers saw this as an end to their teaching careers. In several school districts they managed to influence boards not to include teaching typing skills in elementary schools. Many of them were shaken when they witnessed eight-year-olds with better typing skills than their grade 11 students. They did not even consider that their teaching skills would be appreciated in the elementary school system. Usually, it would mean not only a "pay cut", but their prestige would suffer as well.      The use of computers in the school system is still severly handicapped by the reluctance of teaching staffs to develop good computer skills. (Because of tenure and the strength of their union, teachers do not need to be computer literate.)     Is your child's teacher a computer role model? Can your child's teacher type without looking down at the keys? If not, she/he is setting a bad example for students being prepared for the "world out there!"     I have witnessed automobile mechanics using computers on the job and they were certainly more computer literate than their children's teachers.     Instead of being quick to identify you, or your child's teacher as one who could pass the typing test, help us by identifying the teachers who can not. And if you are a teacher that can't type, learn!

     
One-room classrooom provides journey into past

At left is a classroom layout accommodating 48 students in six grades.   Notice alternative seating for the sexes. Horizontal rows represented teams. Each team comprised six grade levels. Regular 3R competitions were held. The smallest team size determined how many students would contribute to their team totals.

The origins for my thinking when working on this design was my experience in a one-room shool house in Longlac, Ontario in the 1940s. Mrs. Marjorie Mills was our teacher. She taught there from 1942 until her retirement in 1969. Longlac's new public school is named in her honour.
     She was a gem, especially in light of the fact that this was a rural school and kids could be undisciplined and unruly.
     She was always in control, never had to use the strap, and we learned well. Students needing assistance were encouranged to seek help from their team members. The team approach encouraged positive interaction of students at all grade levels.
     Team competitions were particlarly exciting. Most were of the “spelling bee” variety and covered, current events, "problem solving", arithmetic and, naturally, spelling.
    Each team had its own blackboard on which she posted reading assignments, arithmetic problems, and homework assignments (if any). Each team earned merit and demerit points. Team loyalty inhibited bad behaviour as students were answerable to their teams for any demerit points they acquired. There was a special incentive for students of oversized teams to have their score “count” in the competitions.
    Naturally, a Grade 4 student wouldn't want the class to find out that he/she couldn't help a Grade 3 student solve a problem. When such an event took place it received a disappointed look from Mrs. Mills. That is all required to get the Grade 4 student pounding their books for an answer. She invoked peer pressure as motivation for us to learn.

Given the freedom to discuss it,
most teachers endorse concept
    Armed with this diagram and this scanty description, most teaching professionals have no trouble identifying benefits of such a classroom approach. In numerous brainstorming sessions, participants were quick to come up with simple solutions for any possible obstacles. In my implementation, several “one-room schools” could operate in a single school building.

Obstacles existed “outside” the classroom
    These were the most recurring obstacles:
    teacher’s unions;
    seniority or “vice-principal” perks;
    existing school architectures;
    absence of individual school desks;
    lack of parental support (it was often beyond their
 comprehension);
    and most significantly, teacher resistance.
    Most of this resistance came from teachers who experienced a general fear of failure or being exposed as generally incompetent.
    Resistance or acceptance did not occur along age or years- of-experience lines. Some of the strongest supporters were seasoned teaching professionals who knew they could handle themselves irrespective of what grades were being taught.
    Do you have any thoughts, observations or experiences that you would like to share on this subject?
                      -- Anton Kozlik

                                    Next week's installment:
    “Does your school pass my Desk Test?"