This is really such a shame, because what this does sure as heck doesn’t prepare students for post-secondary education. I guess that becomes the problem of the post-secondary institution to fix and the secondary can wash its hands of any accountability.

This fits in very nicely with a comment made by a Gr.12 teacher to a student to expect to fail at least one course in university. That it is the norm. If that doesn’t completely let this particular educator off the hook I don’t what else it does, but we sure didn’t go into the system with that expectation.

Sounds to me like the same idiot dumbing down that we saw with the Math curriculum where the “experts” tried to eliminate Calculus only to hear loud and clear from the professional engineering society that it was a ridiculous idea.

Sounds good to me, inquiry method, hands on experimentation, few formulas to memorize.

The leading countries in education today have the shortest curricula. The point of good education today is to go deep for deeper understanding, not to race through a multitopic cover the waterfront system.

“create an understanding of the subject” will come as a surprise to those post-secondary pre-requisites and course expectations that actually insist on a knowledge based on skills and memorization. 

All this time we were expecting kids to be prepared for that first-year chemistry class. “understanding” will not cut it.

Pity the Grade 12 student who doesn’t land a teacher who knows the subject matter and insists on something more than understanding.

I’d be worried about what the “experts” who determined what goes in to the “new” curriculum felt they could leave out?

Everyone,  I’m David Vasoff.  I’m from Barrie, Ontario.  Background in financial services, but am currently dealing extensively with the education system.  Just found this site and blog.  Very interesting.  This is my first post.

Malkin, I’ve got a question for you.  The other day you spoke approvingly of a national curriculum.  Here’s an idea:  how about choice in curriculum?

For example, in chemistry, both the current curriculum and the 1966 one could be approved by the Ministry of Education.  School principals (or smaller school boards) would decide which curriculum to use.  Parents would choose which school to send their child to, basing the decision in part on the curriculum.  (Parents would obviously take other factors into account, too.)

Malkin, what do you think?

I’d be curious to get Mr. Little’s opinion also.

One might think that a national curriculum is an easy thing to do since it makes so much sense but in both USA and Canada, the constitution(s) give almost exclusive control over education to the provinces. Unitery states like Finland on France or many other nations have a much easier time to have a national curriculum. I don’t think we will ever get Quebec to agree with a national history curriculum for example. The best we seem to be able to accomplish is to have the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada to coordinaate the curriculum on a voluntary basis. Even this is difficult because the stronger provinces don’t want to dumb down their program to some ‘water is the wine’ program that suits everyone but the weaker provinces if forced to use for example an Alberta curriculum, one of the strongest, would be exposed as doing very badly. They don’t support that.

The USA has the same problem but it is worse. Try to Massachusetts and Mississippi to agree on standards. Good luck with that but it is a worthwhile goal to keep working at.

There is a place for choice in education but I feel their should be a very strong core curriculum in English, math, history, geography, science and languages. I actually support more compulsory subjects but when it comes to electives (art, PE, shops, business,...) , there can be a bit more latitude. I feel programs should be 80% prescribed and leave 20% for local priorities.

I favour inquiry, project essay, class, presentation, orientation in program but not in an absolute sense. There is a place to learn facts and formula in many subjects which are necessary to eventually support essays, panels, etc.

In the knowledge vs skills debate I am a moderate. There are many false dicotomies in education. You need both to be educated.

In answer to David Vasoff’s question, it seems to me that a single universal curriculum would be best, given the mobility of our population (something like one-sixth of the population moves every year). If there were a universal curriculum, then students could move seamlessly from school to school (at least, that’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it).

However, it doesn’t look to me as if we can get there from here. There are enormous obstacles in the path of the development of a good, non-politicized curriculum. Given this reality, then it seems to me that David’s proposal might be an excellent compromise. If we were to encourage entrepreneurs to develop their own curricula and try to sell them to schools and then set schools free to adopt the one that suits their circumstances best, it may happen that the best curriculum will gradually prevail and be adopted by more and more schools. (This assumes, as David does, that parents are able to choose their children’s schools and will be favourably disposed towards schools that use a widely-used curriculum.)

And I’ll just mention that the Core Knowledge Foundation has developed an excellent K-8 curriculum which they are on the point of making available to the public at no charge. There will be a notification on our blog when this happens.

Doug and Malkin, Thank you.

Malkin, you’ve tuned in to exactly to what I’m thinking. 

Below is an example (I stress example - I’m making this up as I type) of what various elementary literacy curriculum might look like:
        i) Literacy standard - based on existing Ontario literacy curriculum, suitable for those who buy in to what the Ontario education system is currently offering.
        ii) Literacy nuts and bolts - a rigorous and sytematic examination of the structure of the English language, suitable for those with dyslexia or who believe strongly in this type of approach.
        iii) Literacy HFA - a curriculum that incorporates a strong element of “social teaching”: etiquette, body language, inferencing of motivations and an application of this knowledge to understanding written and spoken literature.  Suitable for those with Asperger’s Syndrome or high functioning autism (HFA) who would benefit from direct instruction on interpersonal communication.

The point is, the different curricula would be geared to different types of learners.  I submit this presents several advantages:
a) Curriculum more closely geared to the needs of the learner.
b) Some standardization of the curriculum for those in IEP situations.
c) Moving wouldn’t be an issue.  Presumably you’d look for a school offering the same curriculum when you moved.
d) Political compromise - reconciles any disconnect between what education suppliers want to offer and what education demanders want to consume.

Provincal versus national?  I’d say provincial all the way.  If another province does something better than my province then I want to know about it.

I agree with Doug’s comments about a strong core curriculum in English, math, history, geography, science and languages.  I would submit, though, that course selection is a separate issue from curriculum design of an individual subject.

Any more thoughts, anyone?

David, coming from a parent, I do not think it is a good idea in allowing choice in curriculum, for schools. The 1966 and current chemistry curriculum are two different things, yet very much alike. Different being, that in 1966 the students taking chemistry, were only the students in the 5 year program, and it was to give the bare bones and essentials needed for post-secondary studies. Whereas today, chemistry and application of it is given to all students in bits and chunks, starting in grade 4, and where the sole chemistry courses can be found in grade 11 and 12, for students who are heading off into post-secondary and courses that require high school chemistry. For high school students who are not heading in that direction, where chemistry is not needed, there is the general science courses. Alike, where both teaches the bare-bones, but current curriculum teaches the bare bones over a spread of grades,
It would be nice to have choice in curriculum, but it would be impossible, since control of curriculum is in the hands of the provincial education departments, where at least provincially the curriculum has been standardized. It was done to save money, and as a cost measure to control the costs of curriculum at the school board level. The other factor, is that our science and math is more or less has been nationalized. The only difference is in the content, where there is provincial facts inserted in places that is appropriate.
I would like to see different types of curriculum that offers approaches that are more in keeping with the reality of the school and their issues. I think it is doubtful, when school boards and the ministries are often found micro-managing the schools, right down to how teachers present materials, to teaching methods to the type of resources allowed to use.

One of the most difficult problems in HS education across many nations is streaming (Americans call it tracking) where students are placed in different ability groups for instruction. These tend to become self fullfilling. They are formalized in HS as academic/applied (9-10) and University, College, Workplace, (11-12). We have had this system albeit with different labels , so long we seem to think we cannot possibly do without it but many countries do not use streaming and many more downplay it.

My favourite example in Finland does not use streaming until grade 11 and even then, only a small group goes away for a vocational program. A much bigger group than Canada and the US stays in a university bound mainstream. Jeannie Oakes proved a long time ago that de-streamed systems retain students much longer and graduate more students at higher levels.

When Malkin says “de-politicized” I agree that public schools should not tell people how to vote but I also feel that they cannot be “neutal” on such issues as human rights, gay rights, anti-racism, labour rights, global warming, women’s equality, abortion rights, anti-war (people get killed), the long term effects of drugs, 3rd world development, and so forth. Clearly they have a responsibility in these areas to turn out citizens with a critical concsiousness.

Core Curriculum? It’s Always Been There!

As long as I can remember, at least as long as I’ve been involved with home educators since the 70’s, there was one standard core curriculum that was used regularly, either followed closely or used for comparison.  That was the “Typical Course of Study” from the World Book People.  Whether you bought the encyclopedia set or not, you could get the booklet with the complete syllabus K – 12.  It has evolved somewhat and now has added Preschool.

I’ve just quickly looked over the latest, looking for key concepts.  Most of the (“old”) basics are still there.  For example, because I and many home educators avoid totalitarianism in its many forms, I was always proud that Democracy vs Communism was always there as a topic in Social Studies, Grade 12.  Students could look up these topics in their home set or use the library.  (By the way, home educators and the children really use the libraries well—all the way from getting their reading level determined to help with interlibrary loans for specialized interests.)

About the topic of Communism, I see that the latest evolution has brought the subject down to Grade 10 and combines it with the historical events relating to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

My view has always been that if the public schools taught to mastery half of what such a course of studies suggested, we would have the most literate and knowledgeable citizenry ever!

Please go here and check for yourself, your favorite topics, subjects, and skill expectations:  http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?curriculum

The one I have in front of me is from 1970 and was included in The Home School Manual by Ted Wade.

As I follow the field for its political and academic health I find that the literature is massive—that is, the supplies, resources and how-to’s available.  In fact the latest in the line of “core curriculum” books is “Home Learning Year by Year: How to Design a Homeschool Curriculum from Preschool Through High School (2009), by Rebecca Rupp..  From the reviews of this book I find a number of parents even use it to supplement regular school lessons.

As far as political health of the movement goes, Germany is a problem.  It doesn’t allow home education and people have to go underground.  A German family has just been granted political asylum to live in the USA and home educate.  Judge Burman, in his summation, said “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress …This family has a well-founded fear of persecution … therefore, they are eligible for asylum.” http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5174919,00.html

What we must NEVER – EVER – even consider in Canada is a National Curriculum.  That’s one big problem in the USA.  The feds have their paws into education.  Too many cooks spoil the soup!

Leave Canadian education up to the provinces.  Better yet, move to more choices for parents via charters and vouchers so that informed parents can select schools or modes in the best interests of the child.  Too much decision-making is now made in the best interests of the system, so unfortunate and so wrong!

Doug, in Finland they concentrate on the basics in grades K to 6. By high school, the majority to students more or less have even skills when it comes to reading, writing and numeracy. Another plus is that the Finland system, also teaches note taking, summarization that prepares them to do advance courses,
What you are suggesting is fine, but what happens to students with lower skills in reading, writing, and numeracy. And it is about 60 % of a high school student population, that do not have the skills to write notes, because it was never taught in the lower levels. Skills such as note taking, must be taught, just like the skills in reading. My child is now writing her notes, which I taught her, but it was not easy. In fact, she is one of the note takers for other students, who write lousy notes, the same lousy notes my child, use to write. Tonight, I found her tapping away at her laptop,  rewriting her science notes. Now she move beyond not just writing notes at school, but now she is reviewing, which is the beginning of good study habits, for the rest of high school and beyond.
If there was a study conducted, perhaps there is one, I believe if they asked the students why they take the courses that they do, one of the responses will be, I can’t do the work or it is too hard , or on any similar line. Dig a little deeper, than you find the real reasons, too hard to read, I can’t write notes, too much writing, or to use your example, the students who are sitting at the 50s, what is the point, I will end up failing and I just don’t have what it takes for those courses.

Tunya, The encyclopedias are encouraged in my home. It is standard procedure, when researching for a topic. But more importantly, years ago to get my daughter to read more, I started to buy books that held great interest. The books were more like encyclopedias, packed with information, but also with beautiful illustrations. Most of the books are in ancient history and science. Even though it was slow going, and perhaps she only read one page, she was reading. I got the idea off home school sites, and even at the school they bulked and wanted her to read chapter books.
Now saying that, we also use the world encyclopedias as a resource, and for my daughter to have a deeper understanding on whatever the subject is. It actually promotes working independently, and she has more confidence, that leads to overall mastery of the topic.