Teacher:  “Do you agree?”   All the students in unison: “Yes!”

Teacher:  “It’s an angle.”  All the students in unison:  “An angle.”

Teacher:  “An angle”.  All the students in unison:  “An angle.”

Teacher:  “An angle. Understand?”   Students: “yes”.

Teacher:   “This is an angle. Right?”  All the students in unison: “Yes.”

When I visited various schools in Asia and south Asia I had a wonderful opportunity to watch teachers teach, and to work very briefly with students. What I found most interesting about the teaching was the way in which information was imparted to students. The teacher told the students what the information was and the kids repeated it back. This happened several times before the teacher went onto the next idea and the same method of “tell-repeat-tell-repeat-tell-repeat” happened over and over again. Memorization was the secret to doing well. When in New Delhi, I watched with amazement, impressed with how much a group of students could memorize when presenting a story about a famous mathematician. It was clear that the students had written up a long, long speech and memorized it word-for-word. These children also shared very worn, old textbooks in their classes, and they had no textbook to take home with them, so they had to memorize. Rote learning is ideal for this type of thinking: quickly memorize the key words, and repeat it back. But don’t be fooled, rote learning is rote. It is not about understanding so that higher level logical thinking can happen. It is also very individualized in that there is no discussion, or sharing of information and ideas between students.

Switching out of teaching for rote learning to other methods of teaching is very, very difficult to do. Teaching for rote learning is very easy to do, and therefore, the teacher doesn’t have many opportunities to develop their teaching skills. When teaching for rote learning, the focus is on the content, and telling the students “what-it-is” or “what-to-do”. It is very easy to just stand at the front of the class and tell the kids what to do. All this requires is knowing how to do it for yourself, then telling the kids and showing them, if needed. The kids just repeat what the teacher is saying, or doing, and follows along. The consequences are that students learn to wait to be told what to do, and to do what they are supposed to with exactness, as told. Procedures are robotically followed, and students feel good because they can see the answer very quickly. The types of questions that work well with this are procedural, and those that can be completed with very few steps. Therefore, repetition of very quick-to-answer questions are given, and it appears that a lot has been taught because a lot of simple, fast questions have been completed on a sheet, or many words have been memorized and written. This is also easy for a teacher because the amount of risk for the teacher is very low. They can control what will be said, and what the answers will be.

Now let’s switch out of rote learning, to learning where the teacher is able to instill a disciplined discovery, in which skills are learned and practiced, and ideas are developed by “pulling out” ideas from the students. In this type of teaching the teacher must know how their students are thinking and the students’ understanding of concepts. This is the start of the “pulling-out” process. Once they have developed a new idea, then the skills can be developed and the questions that the students will work through will require them to apply their skills with logical thinking because the questions will not be those that the teacher has given before. The teacher’s main role is to ensure that the students have all the skills needed to answer the questions, and that they have modeled the right kind of thinking by asking questions that get students to think about what is happening. When students have this opportunity to think and work with a program that challenges their ideas, then they need to talk to others. When they naturally find themselves collaborating with others, then they start to develop many more ideas on their own, not waiting to be told what to do. They now will be asking the questions, pushing the ideas forward, becoming pro-active in the way they work with the world rather than reactive, waiting for others to tell them what to do.

Kim Langen

CEO & Co-Founder

Spirit of Math Schools

The change in the sex education curriculum isn’t the core of the problem. It is only the open sore that hurts too much and can’t be easily hidden. This new curriculum starkly illuminates a much deeper issue in our educational system. It is the issue of values, and who has the responsibility to teach those values.

For decades and decades now, education has gradually taken over many of the roles of parenting. Educators have taken it upon themselves to teach etiquette, social norms, respect for one-another, relationships, discipline, and other skills and values that used to be the responsibility of parents. In the past, parents took the responsibility to teach this at home. Educators have, in many ways, taken over the role of the parent, and most would argue that they have had to, because it isn’t happening at home. Should educators be responsible for all of this? Can they really teach it all?

What is the result? The expected role of the parent has changed. Their expectations for themselves have also changed. Some think that it is okay to not teach etiquette at home. They are confused as to who is responsible to teach their child how to arrive on time, or get his or her work done. It never ceases to surprise me when I hear a parent expecting a teacher to be the sole advocate for discipline and rigour, leaving the parents to be the “adult friend”.

As parents, we have let this shift of teaching values and social norms seep into the educational arena to an extent that many now expect it to be completely taken care of in the classroom. The new sex education curriculum has highlighted this shift of responsibilities as it is one of our most sensitive subjects, and schools are teaching it to our most vulnerable sector. Sex education is a tough discussion for parents to have with their children, but an essential one, as it should be discussed with trusted adults, rather than completely leaving it to teachers who have their child for short 1-year stints. This is why the development and release of such a delicate subject must be done with utmost sensitivity, planning and preparing with parents as much as with educators.

My view on this new sex education curriculum? In brief, I have a background in science and therefore look for curriculum content that is fact-based. The information should be accurate, and when introducing very sensitive information, it should include the scientific facts. This subject matter is extremely sensitive, and there are serious physical and mental ramifications should someone end up making a wrong decision. This should be introduced with a focus on science, rather than on “feelings”. The curriculum could have stated many more scientific facts outlining what happens to bodies when involved in various types of sexual relationships. Also, from my experience, I know that young 11 and 12 year olds have the mental maturity to make the decisions that they are told to make in this curriculum based on “feelings”.  Because of the values and morals intertwined in this subject, parents should have been included as a very strong and valuable part of the consultation process when developing the program. Just sending out a survey to parent council chairs is simply not good enough.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that society is safe and ready for the future. People elected by our citizenry are to help to strengthen the society’s values. Educators and parents have the responsibility to ensure that children and youth have the knowledge and skills to prepare themselves for their futures. It is a fine line that is crossed whenever anyone thinks that they can unilaterally mandate a change to the values of individuals, the family unit, or of a country. It is an equal problem when people don’t take any responsibility for teaching their children.

Kim Langen

CEO & Co-Founder

Spirit of Math Schools

The first is to introduce your child to other children that they would never regularly meet. Throughout the school years, children typically stay with the same friends and are attracted to those who have very similar backgrounds, culture, family values and economic similarities. Their friends will often stay the same year after year, and the familiarity of their friends keeps a child thinking the same way. This summer, why not introduce your child to new children; children who have completely different backgrounds, and see if your child can forge brand new friendships. While building these relationships, your child will naturally try to understand why the new children are acting the way they are and saying what they are saying. Through this experience they will learn how to see the world differently and therefore understand and see the world through different lenses. In today’s world understanding others not “like you” is extremely important, not only for your child when they get older when they join a very diverse work force, but also for your child to learn how to quickly adjust their thinking to include that of others, and therefore to accept others. Here are two ways that you could do this:

1.            Send your child to a day camp that is either catered to children or  youth in a very different part        of town, or a camp with a focus            introducing activities that they would not normally have chosen.

2.            If you can’t put your child into a summer camp, then simply go to a different part of the city where the demographics of that area    is very different from yours. Go into the stores and spend some time in the park to allow your child to play with others. Do this as a regular trip so that your child has a chance to start to see  the differences in perspectives.

he second life-changing action you can do for your child is to take this time to introduce them to nature. One of the primary intelligences that Howard Gardner introduced was that of nature – understanding living things and being able to read nature. To get a feel for the natural environment, one must first understand it and learn what to look for, then a child will learn HOW to look at it, developing an ability to read it. When a child has this ability, then they will be open to a whole new understanding of how the world works, and how humans fit into this much bigger world. Some of the world’s largest problems in the future will be based on the environment, and if each child was taught how to read the environment, then the protection of nature will start with millions of human beings, which is the most effective way of taking care of nature.

Some simple activities that you could participate in with your child:

1.            Pick a public place and pick up garbage.

2.            Learn the names of 5 different types of trees and be able to recognize 5 birds.

3.            Plant an herb and watch it grow.

4.            Travel to a stream and see how many creatures you can count  living in the stream.

5.            Take a trip to a forest and have a look at the type of trees that  grow inside the forest compared to those that grow on the outer skirts of the forest. How does their bark differ? Where are the leaves? What type of leaves do they have? If there are pine trees, have a look at the shape of the pine needles of two different types of pine trees. What advantages do pine needles have over other types of leaves?

Kim Langen

CEO & Co-Founder

Spirit of Math Schools

“Under the treaty, India cannot make any unilateral changes and the danger of this happening is not very apparent,” said a Pakistani water expert. The expert added that the Pakistan government is using this information to strengthen its case against India. Former water advisor Kamal Majidullah said, “There is an established procedure in place and India has in the past, by and large, respected the terms of the treaty, which continues to be one of the successful such treaties signed between the two countries.” But there are those who benefit from taking the issue to levels of hysteria. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf parliamentarian Shireen Mazari has questioned the claim that the treaty cannot be unilaterally changed by one party. She insisted Pakistan should take the issue to the UN and the World Bank before India shuts off the tap.Aziz was clear in his reply in Parliament. He said none of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty states that the World Bank was a guarantor of the pact between the two countries. Rather, the World Bank was a facilitator and the treaty will continue to be in force until it is modified by both countries after an understanding. “This treaty is for an indefinite period and binding. It is not time-specific or event-specific,” he said.

Actress Priyanka Chopra has spoken her heart out, in the wake of the spillover of recent tensions between neighbours India and Pakistan on Bollywood. The Fashion actress said that as a “patriot”, she would go along with whatever the government decides on the issue. But she one question to ask: Why are only actors singled out in these discussions?

Talking about the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, Priyanka, whose late father Ashok Chopra was an army officer, told NDTV: “I have read about it. It’s tricky because first of all artistes and actors are always held responsible for every bigger political agenda that happens in the country.”

“Why not business(men), politicians, doctors and why not anyone else except for public people, who are not actors in the movie industry?”

Priyanka, currently seen in the lead role in the popular American TV series Quantico, said: “I am extremely patriotic. So, whatever my government decides is important to keep the country safe. I go with that, but at the same time, I don’t believe that artistes are a representation… at least there hasn’t been an actor who has done something which has harmed someone’s life out of malice or anything.”

She thinks that “If someone needs to be hung, the one person that’s picked up is an artiste or a public person from the movie business. That to me, is not fair”.

India-Pakistan tensions got heightened following a terror attack on an Indian Army camp at Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 19 soldiers were killed, last month. The Indian Army then carried out surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control.

“I am appalled by what happened in Uri and we need to stand up and protect our country. We have been an extremely peaceful nation for so many centuries. We have never been those who go out and fight. We are from the land of (Mahatma) Gandhi. We are all about non-violence,” Priyanka said.

“There are so many different people with so many different opinions and belonging to so many different religions. They have had different sort of upbringing. It’s (India is) a difficult country to govern, yet we have managed so well,” she added.

Priyanka stated that we should be more concerned about the safety of Indian soldiers and their families.

“We should be concerned about keeping the rest of our sons and the rest of our soldiers safe and that needs to be the focus. We always lose our focus and comment on something else because that’s what that makes noise and because people talk about it and media carries it,” she said.

Following the September 18 terrorist attack, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena issued an ultimatum to Pakistani artistes to leave India and said the party would not let their movies release in India.

The Indian Motion Picture Producers Association passed a resolution banning Pakistanis from working in films being made in India. In retaliation, some Pakistani theatre chain owners banned the screening of Indian films.

On Friday, the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India said that movies featuring Pakistani actors would not be screened in single screen theatres in Maharashtra, Goa and Gujarat.

In a pre-recorded video film-maker Karan Johar has vowed not to engage with talent from across the border, has reiterated his patriotism and has appealed that the release of his movie not be disrupted. Johar tries his best to reflect a somber mood by wearing black and stands in front of a black background. He even speaks about how the country comes first for him. Maybe because Johar is from Bollywood, it does not have the desired effect. The point is: In any other situation it is a video that is worth laughing at. But not now. People in the know of how Bollywood works attribute various reasons for the current tension: Some say this could be a war between the various “camps” in the film industry, others say there are political undertones to the controversy, and some say it’s nothing more than a response to some groups who specialize in intimidating and making a quick buck. Whatever the reasons, this video is a reflection of the pitiable state to which our society has been reduced to. Videos where citizens profess their patriotism are stuff that emerge from nations that have a totalitarian regime, where citizens have to constantly remind the leader that they “love” the country and him.

India is a vibrant democracy that was built and continues to flourish by accommodating differing viewpoints and informed debate. India should not be defined by the limited spectrum of understanding professed by groups that rely on strong-arm tactics. It’s a pity when a citizen is forced to profess his/her love for the nation. Leading the charge is Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), a party whose nuisance quotient is disproportionally higher than its political representation anywhere in the state. Given this, the Devendra Fadnavis government’s refusal to take action against the MNS’ threats gives the impression that the government is either incapable or agrees with what is being done. Otherwise how can a statement by Ameya Khopkar, president, MNS Cine Workers Association, that “we will ransack multiplexes if they go ahead with the release “and that multiplexes that screen the movie “better remember that they are decorated with expensive glass sheets” not catch the attention of the police? The protection offered by the Mumbai Police to multiplexes comes late in the day after passions have been fanned. There’s an important line in Johar’s message which the MNS and other “nationalistic” attack groups have missed. He says that while he was making the movie “there were efforts by our government for peaceful relations with the neighbor”. So can it be argued that by accommodating Pakistani talent Johar was following what the government at that time was doing?

I feel sorry for Karan Johar not because I think he makes films that are stellar works of cinematic genius — he prefers the tear-jerker variety stuffed with songs and dance (which, by the way, is purely Indian and thus “nationalistic”). I feel sorry because an individual has been pushed to a corner and threatened by a mob using “nationalistic sentiments” as an excuse to browbeat him into professing his patriotism — as though Pakistan-bashing is the meter to measure an Indian’s patriotism. That a film-maker had to explain and make a xenophobic declaration in a desperate attempt to ensure the smooth release of his film is a slap on the face of the Fadnavis government. It is a pity that the State reduces its role to a mute spectator when fringe groups and political outfits fan nationalistic passions on false arguments and threaten to disrupt law and order. The ruling BJP is doubly at fault because not only has it failed in checking threats from fringe groups, but it has also failed to rein in its youth wing which has joined those groups threatening to block the screening of movies with Pakistani artistes.

Dear Karan Johar,

You don’t know me. As an introduction of sorts, let me tell you: I was the guy who many months ago wrote “Hang Ujjal Dosanjh for treason before charging Aamir Khan with sedition” in response to attacks on him for voicing his wife’s fears about the then brewing and now surging fanatical storm in India. I have been out of India since 1964. I was an eighteen-year-old young man, born and raised in relative poverty, who left India and over the years had to become a Canadian citizen to be able to practice law so that I could “bring home the bacon” as we say in the West. Please understand the expression has no religious connotations. It connotes only the responsibility of the parent to put food, vegetarian or non, on the table so it could go into the mouths of his/her hungry children. So I understand why you have made a deal with the devil of fanaticism to have your movie run without violent and fanatic thugs burning the movie theatres in a felt rage of vengeance against Pakistani terrorists, sponsored by a terrorist military that owns Pakistan, a country run by an invalid Sharif government. You and I both know that Pakistani madrassas and military are in the business of churning out thousands of fanatics ready to attack ‘infidel’ India in the name of Wahabi Islamic terror funded by Saudi money. By and large Indians, including the Indian Muslims, have rejected the call of fanaticism. India has largely escaped the most vicious Islamist poison of Wahabi terror. That speaks to India’s tremendous ability to absorb unanticipated military or cultural shocks–an ability we know well from our reading of Indian history. As an Indian overseas, I understood and supported the surgical strikes following the dastardly Uri attack. But I also know as I am sure do you, that many Pakistanis just like Indians, want peace on our borders between the two countries. If the Pakistani actor/s in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil were fanatics harbouring hate against India, or were afraid of the India-hating military and the terrorists trained and funded by it, they would never have dared or agreed to work in your film. You must admire their courage. I can tell you from personal experience standing against a storm of religious fanaticism is no easy task. Several years ago I took unending abuse and several poundings of an iron bar on my head in fighting the Khalistanis in Canada. Every thump of the iron bar on my skull made me more determined to fight them. The Indian and a lover of freedom of expression in me kept thinking “How dare they?” I want to say to you that I understand all the financial compulsions that made you say that you will never ever have Pakistanis act in your movies. To ensure your movie was allowed to run in theatres in India you surrendered your freedoms and mine to a few fanatics and goons of the MNS–the self styled definers of Indian patriotism. And you know patriotism is often the last refuge of scoundrels. I was sad that you so surrendered your freedom of expression. I am sure you know and remember the words of the prominent protestant pastor and a great foe of Adolf Hitler. I reproduce them here for you and all of us to remember:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not
speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not
speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one
left to speak for me.

I am sad that you surrendered to the forces of darkness and despotism; but even sadder that not many others from the land of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Lohia and JP had the courage to speak out.

The writer is the former Premier of BC- Canada and a well known social activist

She said past trade missions had focused on big business, but she wanted to adopt a new approach and would take small and medium companies from every region of the United Kingdom.

Samsung announced the recall of 2.5 million Note 7s in early September following numerous reports of the phones catching fire. Recently, the South Korean tech giant that has long dominated the premium market pulled the plug on the $882 device in what could be one of the costliest product safety failures in tech history. The news is a boon for Google, which last week announced a new line of Pixel smartphones, plunging the company into the hardware market that it has previously left to manufacturers such as Samsung. Samsung’s retreat will prompt consumers to take a closer look at Google’s phones.

Toyota said the parking brake cable can disengage unexpectedly, causing the brakes to stop working properly. So if the car is left in any gear other than park, it could start rolling away, and possibly crash. Toyota said 17,000 Prius vehicles were recalled in Europe, and the rest in Australia and other regions. The problem models were manufactured from August 2015 through October 2016. The company said all the vehicles were manufactured at its Tsutsumi plant in Toyota city, Japan, the company’s headquarters, one of a handful of plants around the world that make the Prius.