Typhoon Haiyan

Typhoon Haiyan is a terrible storm – one of the worst for some time. We should do what we can through the Red Cross to help the victims of this storm. We should also do what we can to support initiatives aimed at anticipating and adapting to such storms in the future.

But Typhoon Haiyan is not a product of global warming or climate change. This is according to those who have dedicated a significant part of their career to studying such storm and their cause. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don’t need to find an excuse for them. Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph (147 mph) with gusts of 275 kph (170 mph) when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan is comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category (5). In the list of such events in the Phillipines, catalogued since 1896 (see here), it is important but not the most severe in history, as some have claimed. Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones.

So why do some seek to make a connection to global warming when those who research typhoons and hurricanes have repeatedly made clear that the link cannot be shown. Many such writers acknowledge that it is unscientific to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. But then, in the same breath, they’ll say that this or that typhoon or hurricane is “consistent with” the types of weather ”scientists” predict will become more frequent in a warming world. As Roger Pielke Jnr has observed:

“…climate activists have turned up the rhetorical heat on extreme weather in recent years. The reasons aren’t hard to fathom. The 15-year pause in global warming makes it harder to scare people about warming itself. The two greatest terrors featured in An Inconvenient Truth — rapid ice sheet disintegration leading to catastrophic sea-level rise and ocean circulation shutdown precipitating a new ice age – have no credibility. Nobody takes seriously the prospect of warming-induced malaria epidemics either. If you want to scare people, extreme weather is the only card left in the climate alarm deck.”

Pielke, Jr. acknowledges that considerable research “projects” various weather extremes to become more frequent or intense in the future as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change. However, even if those projections prove correct, “it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human-caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes (and to the extent that statistical properties are similar, in floods, tornadoes, drought).” Even the IPCC (AR5) accepts that the link between climate change and extreme weather events cannot be shown with any confidence.

So saying that there is such a connection is not a scientific act, but a political one – one aimed at securing the actions required to reduce emissions. It’s a scientific pilgrimage, not science.

3D and 4D Printing - The Next Big Things

The word “innovation” gets overused. I know, I have been writing about innovation for over thirty years and have had responsibility for drafting policies, strategies and structures all linked to making innovation happen. I have also led innovation skills workshops and leadership development workshops focused on innovation.

From time to time, true breakthrough disruptive innovation happens rarely. The internet is a breakthrough innovation which has disrupted a great many sectors of industry – publishing, movies, radio, music, travel, banking to name just a few.  Synthetic biology will also be a disruptive breakthrough innovation, especially in terms of the treatment of dirty water, foods and energy.

At a conference recently, I spent time exploring what three dimensional (3D) printing will do for the housing industry, You may be surprised to learn that two companies – one in London and one in Amsterdam – are racing to be the first to perfect a process for the printing of 3D houses.  Giant 3D printers can build a 2,500-square-foot house in as little as 20 hours. The Contour Crafting 3D printers could even do the electrical work, plumbing, tiling, finishing work and painting.  The walls are hollow to save on materials and make them lighter, but their strength clocks in at about 10,000 psi -- more than traditional housing walls. Contour Crafting will save the construction 20 percent to 25 percent in financing and 25 percent to 30 percent in materials. The biggest savings would come in labor, where Contour Crafting would save 45 percent to 55 percent by using 3D printers instead of humans. There would also be fewer CO2 emissions and less energy used. You can see a presentation about this here.

Just as I got my head around this, I met and spent time with a business man seeking to commercialize what is being referred to as 4D printing. The new technology, as he explained, involves printing 3D objects that change after they've been printed—a self assembly process whereby printed material forms itself into another shape after being subjected to an energy source, e.g. heat, electricity, light, sound, or submersion in water. The concept draws inspiration from nature which has the ability to self-replicate and repair itself in response to external environmental conditions.

For example, products will use responsive fillers embedded within a hydrogel. This will open up new routes for producing the next generation of smart sensors, coatings, textiles, and structural components – for example, furniture that responds to changing moods or conditions (warmer colours in winter, cooler in summer).

So we have two technologies – 3D and 4D printing – which could be disruptive and transformative for building, materials, technology, textiles and other sectors. Watch this space to better understand just how disruptive these technologies will be.

Play Dough Policy Making in Alberta's Advanced Education Ministry

We have in Alberta a government that cannot focus, manage or build partnerships and trust. This has never been more evident than it its handling under the current Minister of its post-secondary education portfolio.

Thomas Lukaszuk is the Deputy Premier. He was put into Advanced Education to replace a Minister who objected to cuts to post-secondary education and was not seen to be “playing the team game” – ironic for a government which, as a team, is dysfunctional. Even though institutions had been promised a 2% increase in base budgets, Lukaszuk cut funding by 7.3% and also indicated that the post-secondary institutions could expect two years of zero – a total cut against known cost rises of 20% over three years. Thus a plan for +2 became a plan to cut 9.3% from the plans the colleges and universities had developed for 2013-14. At the same time tuition fees were frozen. Play dough time.

Lukaszuk also indicated through draft mandate letters that the role of post-secondary educational institutions would be much more directly tied to commercialization of research, skills education for the labour force and a neoliberal agenda for learning. The term “mandate” (implying enforcement) was later changed to “letters of expectation” (non enforceable). He also required a greater degree of collaboration and integration between them as part of Campus Alberta. At one point he talked about these requirements being a red line. He later backed off, permitting the institutions to offer their own letters for his subsequent finalization and approval. However, the Minister was clear that he expected a reduction in duplication and a sharing of “back office functions”. Play dough time.

Indeed, he allocated $10 million to the University of Alberta to be the “hub” for the sharing of back office functions. Rather than being compulsory, as originally intended, it is now voluntary.  Play dough time.

He also announced that a new Institute would be established – something that had been recommended by the Premiers Council on Economic Development.  This would focus on commercialization of research and channeling in a focused way the innovation agenda of the Province, to be pursued in partnership with the Universities. The University of Alberta had pushed for such an Institute.  With an initial budget of $160 million, the Institute will focus R&D on commercial challenges and commercialization. It also looks like it will be a way of rationalizing Alberta’s innovation system (yet again). Play dough time.

Today the Minister announced an additional one time allocation of $50 million to universities and colleges across Alberta to help them cope with pressure of growth in enrollments.  First we cut base funds and then we allocate one time funds. Play dough time.

It is not surprising that University Presidents and academics, not to mention their Boards, are confused by the play dough strategy of the Government. They don’t sense a plan, any coherence or consistency. Its “wham-bang, thank you man!”. I have been using the term play dough policy making, since you never know what shape the policy will be next. As one colleague I mentioned this too said – at least play dough doesn’t stick to your hands”, which is what Thomas Lukaszuk hopes for, I suspect.

What is at stake here, apart from the fact that there is no trust between institutions and government or within institutions, is the future of the Province’s links between research and innovation and our economic future. The more Lukaszuk the less confidence we have in this relationship.

A play dough way of making policy – now you see it, now you don’t – is no way to run a government. Its no way to treat students. It is no way to treat some of the brightest minds in the Province. The Premier needs to act - but she wont.

Rabbit Tracks and the Big Game of Education - Jeff Johnson's Understanding of What Makes a Great School for All in Alberta...

“You don’t follow rabbit tracks when you are hunting big game” said Jeff Johnson, Minister of Education in the Government of Alberta at a conference run by the Canadian Education Association. No one knows what the big game is in education in Alberta anymore, but we do know that Jeff Johnson is not the right man to lead the hunt for excellence and school transformation.

In response to a simple question asked by Naresh Bhardwaj (a former teacher) about class size this last week in the legislature he said this:

“when we’re looking at quality of education and the success of the student, the size of the class is not the most important thing to track or to try to affect. Obviously, the engagement of the parent is the most important, but second to that is the quality of teaching.”(my emphasis)

Where to start?

There is a mountain of data dating from the early 1970’s and Michael Rutter’s study of school effectiveness and the work of David Reynolds (both of which I was involved in) looking at the factors which impact school achievement. What we know is that there are a range of factors which impact school performance. While parental engagement is a “nice to have” it is not amongst the most critical in shaping school outcomes.

In terms of what we know after this forty years of very rigorous work is that the five key factors which shape outcomes are: (a) prior educational performance of the student – a student who has done well before is likely to continue to do so; (b) social class and economic status – students from impoverished backgrounds do less well than the students from high income families; (c) school size and culture, both overall size of the school and class size matter for a range of complex reasons; (d) whether the school is urban or rural – which is basically a matter of curriculum choice and ability to attract and retain quality teachers; and (e) whether the school is public, private or Catholic and the level of support it receives for its work from its funding source. This list comes from a comprehensive study of this question undertaken by the Government of Australia (2004).

Class size is a complex question, as Harvey Goldstein and Peter Blatchford  pointed out in the 1990’s (here) – it is not just size, it is what happens in class, who is in class and the degree of student engagement that impacts performance. There is not a simple cause-effect relationship. However, a US analysis and synthesis of almost 200 empirical research studies have shown that, for specific targeted purposes, reducing class size improves academic performance. The targeted purposes are: (a) for primary education; (b) for schools with a high intake of students from poor economic backgrounds; (c) where there is a high level of students in class with special needs; and (d) where the subject being studied is known to be challenging for many students. A key condition of success for small class size is that teachers have been trained to teach small groups.

A meta-analysis of 77 studies published by Smith and Glass in 1978 found that small classes were associated with higher achievement at all grade levels. The major benefits of reduction occurred where the number of students in the class was fewer than 20. They concluded that small classes were superior in terms of students’ reactions, teacher morale, and the quality of the instructional environment.

The key findings to review are those from the detailed analysis of PISA. These show that school climate and culture are far more significant that specific organizational measures. While they are related, culture and context speak more to the engaged environment of all aspects of schooling than any specific organizational measure, such as class size (see here, especially at page 37).

The question of teacher quality, which has preoccupied Jeff Johnson for some time (he favours merit pay for teachers – he made this clear when he worked with Dave Hancock on Inspiring Education) is an important question.  A variety of studies indicate that measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both before and after controlling for student socio-economic status and that teacher quality and qualifications count (see here). In particular, subject matter knowledge (those who have a degree in mathematics or science are much better at teaching math or science than those who do not), knowledge of teaching for student engagement and skills in the effective use of learning technologies are all seen as key ingredients for student achievement. Surprisingly for some, the key here is knowledge of teaching and learning processes – it is far more important than knowledge of the subject (Ferguson and Womack, 1993).

Not all teachers are great teachers all of the time. The biggest critics of bad teaching are good teachers. As part of any review there is a need to look at sensible professional practice, including peer-to-peer performance measures and continual performance assessment of teaching, including clear metrics for raising performance year after year. There is also a strong case to introduce a requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers as a requirement for continuing certification. The important thing is to have a clear, effective system that school Principals can use flexibly but is also fair to staff.

Merit pay for teachers is not a smart idea. A 2004 study in Tennessee showed that it had mixed success in rewarding teachers who increased student achievement. Assignment to career-ladder teachers increased mathematics scores by roughly 3 percentile points but generally had smaller and statistically insignificant effects on reading scores (here). Several meta analysis show that merit pay has little or no impact on student achievement, but does start to change adult behaviour in inappropriate ways. Schools have many educational goals – not only easily tested basic skills in math and reading, but the sciences, history, good citizenship, appreciation of literature, the arts and music, physical fitness, good health habits, and character. In any institution with complex or multiple goals, incentive systems that reward achieving only some of those goals (usually those most easily measured) will inevitably distort that system’s output. Rational agents, responding to incentives, will ensure that resources, time, and attention are redirected to goals being rewarded, and away from those (perhaps equally important but more difficult to measure) not being rewarded.  Thirty years ago, the methodologist Donald T. Campbell framed what he called a ‘law’ of performance measurement:

“The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”

Since then, social scientists have documented how simple accountability or incentive systems based on quantitative output indicators have actually harmed the institutions they were designed to improve – not only in education but in business, health care, welfare policy, human capital development, criminal justice, and public administration. Merit pay is a rabbit track.

As for parental involvement or engagement, it is the prior education of parents and their economic status which has an impact on student achievement, not their engagement with the school. Parents who read a lot are more likely to provide an environment in which their children read and parents with a post-secondary education are more likely to be able to provide learner supports to their children than parents who did not complete their high school education. But this is more about socio-economic status and income levels than about engagement. According to the PISA data – consistent over time - about

50 per cent or more of differences between schools are jointly explained by the school climate and student characteristics and the school context. Parental engagement does not appear to be a significant factor.

So, I suggest to Naresh Bhardwaj MLA that he pay attention to the evidence and not much attention to Jeff Johnson, especially if Naresh Bhardwaj is seeking to make informed decisions on the basis of evidence. As for Jeff Johnson, well he should go out and shoot some rabbits – he seems to be tracking them.

References

Ferguson, P., & Womack, S .T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education

coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (1), 55-63.

Government of Australia (2004) School performance in Australia: results from analyses of school effectiveness. 

Alison in Wonderland - The Alberta Premier and the Review of Her Leadership

In just twenty days Premier Alison Redford faces a leadership review by the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The party is likely to permit her to continue, but it will be close.

What’s gnawing at the party are three things. First, it is clear that she is not a very capable leader. While she is by far the smartest Premier since Peter Lougheed, she is no team player. She is petulant, argumentative, single minded and rarely tows lines that have been collectively agreed. She is not liked as a person – even her security team finds her exceptionally difficult – and many within her cabinet simply do not trust her.

Second, party revenue is drying up. Corporate Calgary and the well known donors didn’t favour her in the leadership election, don’t like her and don’t want her. They are not paying. She has also alienated many faithful in the party – like all who supported Gary Mar in the leadership election – and she is not a focused, team playing fund raising machine.

The third reason is that the oil and gas industry (and many others) find the Government she leads basically dysfunctional. One seasoned oil executive said “it’s like dealing with a bag of play dough, you never know what shape the government will be in when you meet them!”. Since she became Premier, foreign direct investment in the oil sands has fallen by 90% - down from $27 billion to just $2 billion in 18 months. Her Government is one key factor – no one has faith in their handling of the Alberta economy. Price of oil, the reaction to Sovereign Fund takeovers by Canada’s Federal Government and concerns over pipelines are the other key factors. While Premier Redford is working hard to secure the three pipelines, she is not working in any convincing way to run a focused and aligned government.

The flooding in Alberta this last summer will help her for some attending the leadership review. She was seen to handle the initial days of the disaster in a positive way (no where near as positively as the Mayor of Calgary), but even this became evidence of her inability to manage her government. Contradictory messages sent to flood victims about compensation, lack of clarity over process and funding and then the “magical trick” of providing what now look like up to $6 billion in restoration costs to municipalities and individuals – money Alberta doesn’t have – are all causing concern.

Premier Redford will not state what level of support she will find satisfactory, though her predecessors have looked to 70% or higher as the staying afloat as Premier watermark. Those who know her well say that she is looking for 50% plus .0001 as a sufficiently winning number.

What may comfort her is that no one is clearly stepping up to the plate at this time, though Stephen Mandel, former Mayor of Edmonton and an astute politician who is an established team player, hinted at his interest “depending on a vote in November”.  Jeff Johnson, Minister of Education and a man who is part of a political dynasty (his father was an MLA) is also known to be interested, as is the pugilistic Deputy Premier, Thomas (“I haven’t a clue what harm I am doing to post-secondary education in Alberta”) Adam Lukaszuk.

I have suggested before that there is no one within the party who is not tainted with the experience of being in this government who should be allowed to lead. Rona Ambrose, Federal Minister of Health, is still by far the best bet to refocus and reinvigorate the party and she would make a tremendous candidate against the very smart and cunning Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith. Ms. Smith has moved her party close enough to the centre, has retained a focus on fiscal responsibility and is dealing with the “nutters and dingbats” within her party. She will do much better in the next election, partly because all she has to do is to let Alison Redford continue as she is and Albertan’s will flock to any credible alternative.

The party could be smart and ditch her now while there is still time to turn this sinking ship around. They are much more likely to re-arrange the deck chairs and send a note of caution to their leader. No courage will be shown. 

Canadian Journal of Teacher Research - Call for Papers

Human life, in and out of school, is complex. Personal, public, and educational changes can be dramatic, and these changes transform how we communicate. How we define and how we teach literacy may also have to change. Because our journal’s focus is Canadian teacher research, we necessarily choose to ground our work in schools – however schools might be designed. In our inaugural issue, dedicated to the teaching of literacy, we want to focus upon what it means to teach literacy and what it means to become literate. Perhaps, we need drastic pedagogical change: perhaps we need to embrace our traditions more tightly.

We have chosen the term “multi-literacies” to highlights two important, related changes. First, Canada is growing more culturally and linguistically diverse. Literacy calls us to negotiate community and global differences, as our lives increasingly interconnect. All languages, English and French included, change and morph. No longer is a single, standard language even possible. Migration, multiculturalism, and global integration intensify this process of change. Second, conceptualizing “multi-literacies” helps us consider the influence of new communication technologies. Meaning is increasingly multi-modal, and written literacy is now only part of a broader literacy that includes visual, audio, and spatial. The Internet is the chief example of literacy’s versatility – the interactive multimedia of a complex, communicating world.

In this context, we invite teacher research about how teachers can help children become literate. What does literacy mean? How can and should “multi-literacies” transform the curriculum and pedagogy of our language and communication? Will old pedagogies cut it? Must we embrace open-ended, flexible, and functional grammars to help language learners consider the cultural, regional/national, technical, contextual differences of language and the multi-modal meanings that seem so crucial to better communication in our world?

The Canadian Journal of Teacher Research is a new, online journal which enables teacher researchers to publish their work in a peer reviewed online journal, present the key ideas from their research in both a published paper and a blog, interact with readers about the issues raised in their papers, and present their ideas (if they chose to do so) using a short video. The Canadian Journal of Teacher Research is a new kind of journal for a new age of teacher-led research. The Journal’s aim is to improve practice on the basis of research evidence and understanding.

The first issue, launched at the beginning of 2014, will focus on literacy, multi-literacies, and the implications of literacy for student and teacher learning, school-based curriculum and instruction, school systems, and for teaching. Submissions should follows the guidelines attached and should be made to Professor Jim Parsons, a member of the Department of Secondary Education at the University of Alberta. Jim will serve as the Executive Editor of the Canadian Journal of Teacher Research. 

Although our first edition focuses on literacy research, please think expansively about both research and literacy. Submissions should document the article’s rationale for the research, the research process (methods and data) and analysis and then look at the implications of this work for teachers, school administrators, systems administrators and policy makers where it is relevant to do so. If, in addition to the article itself, you submit an opinion piece about the meaning of this work  (between 650 and 850 words) it will appear as a blog on the Journal site.

GENERAL ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS

• Cover Page – The title should be in 14 point, bolded, italicized, in Times New Roman, and centered on the cover page with authors’ name(s) and rank four spaces below the title in 12 point and centered. Include institutional affiliations and authors’ e-mail addresses.

• Abstract Page – All manuscripts should include an abstract following the title page. Include the title of the article above the abstract. Limit the abstract to approximately 150 words or less, single-spaced.

Body of Manuscript:

• Use APA guidelines in preparing the manuscript. See http://www.apa.org/journals/faq.html for formatting information.

• The Canadian Journal of Teacher Research accepts manuscripts of varying lengths – if length adjustments are required, the editors will contact authors.

• Leave a single space before and after headings.

• Use 12 point font size.

• Use Times New Roman font.

• Use 1″ margins throughout the document.

• References and citations should also be prepared using APA guidelines. All table, appendices, footnotes, and bibliographic information will be placed at the end of the article in 12 point Times New Roman.

Please also add this line to your email: This manuscript represents original research and is not under consideration for publication in any other journal, conference proceedings, book, or encyclopedia.

Please submit all articles for submission consideration to jim.parsons@ualberta.ca