For the past two years, the Ministry of Education has been consulting with stakeholders on revising BC’s K-12 curriculum. Much of what is being suggested aligns with what you’ve said on this engagement site as well – things like:
- Emphasize important 21st competencies but don’t forget the essential elements.
- Reduce the number of learning outcomes to give teachers and students more time and freedom to explore areas of interest.
- Focus on key concepts and higher level thinking skills.
- Maximize opportunities for personalized learning yet still maintain strong and consistent assessment standards.
Click on these links for more information on the curriculum revision process and work to date:
Overview to BC’s Curriculum Transformation Plans
BC’s Curriculum Transformation Plans
What do you think of the new direction for K-12 curriculum in BC? Please leave us a comment below.
What is happening with the mathematics curriculum? I just finished the brand new 12 one month ago. We have had a new curriculum to tackle every year for the last 5 years. The curriculum hasn’t been in long enough to see the flaws accurately. To change it again seems unfortunate. Besides, math is all about scope and sequence. If certain key components are removed at lower grades the whole thing could become much more difficult later on.
The new curriculum is already not as rigorous as the old one and students are coming into high school without a good grasp of their basic facts. Many are calculator dependent. I am not sure removing more PLO’s is the way to go.
Hi Darlene,
The Ministry is in the midst of transforming BC Curriculum to provide learning opportunities intended to make learning more meaningful to personal interests and strength and relevant to the skills students will need to be successful in their lives. The Mathematics education curricula for BC public schools will be part of this transformation process.
Last summer and into the fall of 2012, the Ministry initiated working groups consisting of academics, classroom teachers and district specialists to discuss curriculum transformation. Following the direction of these groups, it has been proposed future curricula focus on including a broader range of 21st Century adaptive skills. In addition to building a deep understanding of content based concepts, the new curriculum will develop skills and attitudes to enable learners to be effective communicators, creative and critical thinkers who have the confidence to apply their knowledge to complex issues and problems.
The new curriculum for mathematics will maintain a scope and sequence that will provide for rigorous concept development in a developmentally appropriate fashion. The intent of the prescribed learning standards being of a higher conceptual nature is to provide teachers flexibility to meet the needs of their students within the context of their personal needs, ability and interests and is not intended to in any way water down the curriculum. Skill development will remain a significant expectation within the content competency of the discipline.
Your continued feedback as the development process continues is encouraged and welcomed. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns so far.
I applaud the shift of focus from knowledge based outcomes to those illustrative of 21st century competencies,concepts and higher level thinking. I also agree that key to the success of any curriculum is the maintenance of strong and consistent assessment standards. It is vital therefore that assessment practice and product expectations be changed in alignment with the new focus. Assessment data collected must measure the new outcomes and not knowledge based ones. In addition adequate time and resources for faculty development, ensuring educators can deliver the new outcomes is essential.
Changes to assessment are definitely in the works, Kate. We’ll be posting more details and possible opportuntities to be involved or stay informed as they become available.
I really think we need to look at dropping the DPA requiremnets in high school. This is not effective and is basically teaching kids to lie about there physical activity.
Your point is a good one. Of course, kids already know how to lie, but in the DPA the ministry has, in effect, institutionalized duplicity.
I completely agree. It is absurd to attempt to make teachers responsible for what students do outside of school. This is a parental responsibility. Will teachers next be asked to review student’s teeth-brushing logs?
I was part of the conversation Friday at the FNESC conference. Weaving the information from the anti bullying session today and the conversation that we had Friday at FNESC Session I have decided to suggest that a extra core focus for the curriculum should be added:
COMPASSION AND EMPATHY
Overarching goal/outcome.
I am an M.Ed student at VIU and I believe that it is also necessary to include some sort of mechanism for student participation in the curriculum/class planning. Studies by people such as S. Krashen have shown that students fare better when they know more about why they are studying a particular subject or topic, and the pedagogy.
Greg, can you provide a link to the study you mentioned? I would like to read it, and I’m sure others would as well.
These changes seem like a step in the right direction. I think we need to empower our teachers to not just teach content, but teach the skills needed to learn material. The focus in the last decade of standardized testing and assessments based on some algorithm that does not take the complexity of learning into account is flawed. Tests are needed, but they don’t give us a full view of how a child is doing. Parents need to take a much more active role in our children’s education instead of waiting for a report card as well.
Felicity has a great point about rote memorization. It doesn’t translate into useful knowledge that will help our children succeed in the world. It leads us down a road of getting kids to do whatever they can to get a piece of paper in order to get a job, instead of empowering them to problem solve, think critically and create the solutions our world needs. Set standards, but leave room for growth and change within them. Just because you can measure something doesn’t make it valuable and some of the most valuable things can’t be measured. I would say that many of the most valuable aspects of my own education could never have been seen on a test.
Actually, the effort that a student puts into something should be measured separately and count for more than it is now. It is great to have the smartest employee, but if the said employee is lazy, then it is not going to work.
I’m in favour of these changes. There is still far too much rote memorization in school. The average person loses most of what they’ve stuffed into the short term memory the very next day – that is not an education. Project-based learning, being able to delve deeply into topics of interest, that is the kind of learning that people will retain for life. However, I question the “strong and consistent assessment standards” – what exactly does this mean? There are a great many children who will never be able to reveal their true abilities, knowledge and potential on standardized tests, but will nevertheless go on to be extremely successful in life.
“The average person loses most of what they’ve stuffed into the short term memory the very next day – that is not an education.”
ANyone who knows anything about how the brain memorizes material (like the vocabulary [words] that everyone uses) knows that you must use it repeatedly. So I agree with you. But, it does not need to be a project-based activity. Imagine you have to learn the x table’s facts. Hard to do a project on that! While it is true that a project, say, on cooking terms in a French language course around a project to create a pizza is going to be effective, what would be MORE effective is to use the vocabulary used in the lessons yet another time in different ways repeatedly. Not sure that all programs do this. There are recall based software that can do this effectively. I know rote memorization is a bad word, but learning all of those irregular spelling words in English is pretty well all about rote memorization. Words are mostly learned as ideographs like in Chinese since the phonemicity of English is so awful, making learning to read and spell so slow and so hard. When are leaders going to do something about that kind of rote memorization that takes place with, for instance, supposedly avant-guarde guided reading programs or precision reading programs? That’s rote-memorization to the nth degree and no one seems to complain about that! Cognitive dissonance, laziness, or incompetence?
The language being used today is interesting. Competency-based training has a history, and the idea of “Core Competencies” is nothing new.
Competency-based training is based on systematic training toward the mastery of discrete skills. Let’s keep that in mind.
The idea of Core Competencies is great – I teach with this philosophy in mind every day. But there’s something missing here.
A curriculum that has only Core Competencies at its core is missing a thorough appendix of the skills that are expected to be mastered, and that mastery demonstrated, before competence is recognized. Using the ELA 2007 curriculum as a model one finds that the discrete skills (the expository essay, the narrative essay, recognizing theme, to name a very few) have been removed.
So who decides what the discrete skills are that will be mastered and competency acheived?
Schools and school boards.
This is what individualized learning looks like in BC since 2001 – school boards and the schools within them are increasingly responsible for basic elements of the education system that have traditionally been the responsibility of the province.
Since Bill 34 (The School Amendment Act)passed third reading on MAy 13, 2002, law has allowed for schools and school boards to carry out entrpreneurial activity for profit in order to pay for the increase in responsibilities – both fiscal and curriculur – handed down to them.
That’s not individualized learning – that’s privatization in real time. And it needs to stop.
Thanks for your comment Eli.
We are working closely with BC teachers to ensure there is a proper balance of content & competencies across the curricula. Establishing a balance of learner, teacher & district initiatives (thereby being able to respond to individual & local needs & contexts) coupled with strong foundations & provincial standards is paramount to the initiatives being undertaken.
“Responding to individual and local needs”! Let’s talk about those needs. EFL or little EFL? Learning disabilities should be the same no matter where students are learning. There might be a need in some subjects to focus on the industries that are located in that particular area. However, I think Eli is referring to include in the curriculum a set of skills (call them sub-skills) that would be targeted at a particular grade or level. For instance, in the Grade 1 LA PLO, it talks about student being able to read a few high frequency words. It would help if these would be delineated, so that there would be a way to assess precisely what students know or don’t and it would reduce the possibility of repeating the teaching or the possibility of the focussing on the same frequency words year after year when this is not needed. In the Grade 2 LA PLO, it states: ” use knowledge of word patterns, word families, and letter-sound relationships to decode unknown words and recognize an increasing number of high-frequency words.” Words patterns? All of them? Which ones? Word families? There are 91 spelling rules or patterns in English, so which ones and how many are being taught at each grade levels? It seems there is a lot of fancy research and general competences talk, but not enough meat (specifics/guidance) in the PLOs, IMHO! If a house was built this way, there could be a distinct possibility that the roof would not be held by the walls that would have a not so-levelled and imprecise foundation.
Well said, Peter. I think your examples show the erosion of PLOs pretty accurately.
The conceptual framework for transforming the new curriculum is appropriate and needed. We have been fruitlessly trying to mend an outmoded way of “receiving, retaining and returning” what we are taught. Decades of educational reform, based upon raising standards and focusing on the basics, has not improved student engagement nor desired progress in achievement (Canadian Education Statistics Council, 2005). As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If teacher effort could solely improve the system, it should have tipped long ago. We need systemic change to increase the likelihood of making schooling more engaging for students and improving the opportunities for more students to be successful. For those of you who argue for the traditional system of education, tell me how many of you really liked it or wanted to get out as soon as you could? It works for those 20% or so of students (and their parents) who like the status of Honor roles and such as a reward – a system that sorts human beings on an academic standing paradigm not necessarily a thinking or creative paradigm. But extrinsic rewards really only work (if you look at the research on human motivation) for bland, boring and essentially basic tasks that need that incentive. Those students that are really successful and enjoy school are intrinsically motivated by the topics and the learning. Awe, wonder and discovery through dedicated effort trump the fixation on letter grades – which become the goal not the learning or its processes – letter grades can dumb learning down as people tend not to take risks that could improve their learning. Do what is easiest or conventional so you get the good grade. Many teachers lament that students no longer really care if they get a good grade. It is not a motivator for them. More choice in school approaches,methodology and philosophy need to accommodate the diversity of values and beliefs out there about what education is. One size does not fit all. Personalizing learning will go a long way to improve engagement in what you are learning.
Source: Canadian Education Statistics Council. (2005). Education Indictors in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Ottawa: Canadian Education Statistics Council, 2006: Statistics Canada Catalogue 81-582-XIE.
At my child’s school, there are some children who have such poor social skills that they are constantly struggling to make and keep friends. I had the heart-wrenching misfortune last year of witnessing a birthday party held for one of these kids, a party in which my daughter and one other little girl were the only children to show-up (out of a total of 13 girls invited). Can you imagine how rejected this little girl must have felt? This particular litle girl, I was later told, suffers from ADHD (perhaps this explains her poor social skills?)
The point I am trying to make is that children who are ‘socially-disabled’ (for whatever reason), might be better served by a specialized programme/curriculum which makes social-skills development a core and fundamental part of their daily learning. I say this because I recall that a study was conducted a few years ago which concluded that the main reason children drop-out of school isn’t because they find the work and/or workload too difficult, but rather, it is because they have failed to establish positive, meaningful relationships with their peers and teachers.
I am not an expert in the education field; however, after skimming-over the proposed, revised curriculum for Grade 3 (my daughter’s current grade), my raw and instant reaction is:
1) Overall, very impressive; can see that lots of thought and great ideas have been incorporated into the plan;
2) Still far too much ‘fluff’ in my opinion. For example:
Arts Education (Dance, Music, Drama, Visual Arts) -> Social Studies -> Physical Education -> Daily Physical Education -> ADD to this -> morning recess -> lunch -> afternoon recess -> assemblies -> a constant parade of special visitors -> AND, in my daughter’s case (SD #63 – english school) -> french classes (4x per week).
I just don’t think that with all of the above going on, we are leaving enough time for vital subjects such as math, reading, writing and science (especially considering that many children at my daughter’s school are failing in these core subject areas).
3) I am disappointed that the topic of ‘Money Management’ is not going to be taught (at least ‘touched-on’) in this grade. A teaching could be something as simple as talking to the children about what they do with their allowance (e.g., spend it all at once, save 10% and spend the rest); or, a quick and fun lesson on how to roll coins they find laying around the house (recently did this with my kids and they were delighted to count $56.00 in rolled change when the exercise was over). The ability to properly manage money, given the reality that disposable incomes are on the steady decline, will be a vital survival skill for future generations (The Canadian Association for Financial Literacy recommended in a recent report that the curriculum in Canadian schools be updated to include courses which will improve the financial literacy of Canadian children, and it is my understanding that BC was to ‘lead the charge’ on this initiative).
Well, for what it’s worth, that’s my two ‘cents’ …
If students are learning to spell and read in grade 2 and 3 UNLIKE other students in other countries that have more phonemic spelling systems, then there will not be enough time to learn what others are learning earlier, for less MONEY (AKA less tax).
I agree Peter; the english language is illogical and highly inefficient.
What also drives me crazy is that the children are, at least in my SD, suppose to learn to spell by sorting their spelling words into word columns based on their different patterns (e.g., vowel-consonant-consonant) or other shared attributes (e.g., all words with an “air” in the word – air, fair, hair, chair, etc.). This method of teaching spelling might work if english words were consistently spelled based on logical patterns, but it seems to me that they are often not. So, I think the schools should resort back to the old system of just having children memorize their weekly word lists, coupled with encouraging children to spend alot of time reading (which will result in children learning to spell through word recognition).
Well! Yes, I agree! If Commonwealth leaders and educational leaders are not realizing the huge benefit of a regularized system (a system that follows –at the very least– the basic 91 English spelling rules/patterns. What somewhat is actually following rules?), then they should fess up and recognize that the only way one is going to learn to read and spell is to memorize lists of words depending how irregular the pattern is, of course, and read, read, read. They actually do recognize that this is so when the “establishment” promotes the use of the guided reading method (and other word sorting programs) and home reading programs. Not much help for the immigrants, but who cares about them! It sounds all nice, but it is just a way to rote memorize all of those weird sight words without being a list, to show that BC is so avant-garde, and there is no homework, so everyone is happy (except when they are going to come out illiterate, of course, but the elite doesn’t care about that and probably likes it, as it gives them an advantage and it confirms their status)! Of course, all of this is very expensive! At the very least, this money could be used to introduce skills that are higher in Bloom taxonomy more often, but more importantly, earlier. AND, learning and reading would be so much more fun! Imagine that! (BTW, I am told that Swedish teachers supported a spelling reform in their country. I am forbidden [democracy?] to post the link to my website on the idea of regularizing the English spelling system, but you can Google it: Regularizing the English Spelling System)!
First, I am pleased with the general outline of the proposed curriculum. An update was needed, and the reduction in “learning outcomes” is long overdue.
Second, I wonder whether the Ministry of Education has given any thought to changing elements beyond the curriculum itself, such as changing the model of school. Options such as “homeschooling” and “distance learning” (and others) should be considered equal to a traditional “bricks and mortar” school in providing an education to children and achieving learning outcomes.
Bricks and mortar schools have many benefits, not to mention a well established support network, but I feel we are doing our children a disservice by not allowing for alternate methods and means of delivering the curriculum. Innovation cannot simply stop with re-thinking the curriculum. How the curriculum is delivered, how education is funded, how the results are measured and what alternatives to the current model are available also need to be critically reviewed.
I encourage the Ministry to continue to push forward beyond the curriculum and to explore new, creative, even crazy, ways that we can better educate our children today and in the future.
“Change” like regularizing the English spelling system to follow its 91 spelling rules regularly? Now that would be “revolutionary”, wouldn’t it?
I would like to see more independent study skills and projects evolving from this. There are way too many outcomes whereby there are only answers which fit the box, otherwise not inspiring self directed learning and focusing on all learning styles ‘thinking outside of the box’.
I see students who no longer know how to do their own research without using ‘google’ to fill in the blanks. Many do not take the initiative to learn on their own without being asked to or rewarded by grades and scholarships. How can teachers project these methods of teaching and encourage some natural learning when they have to be conscious of always checking off boxes? Alternative programs that support child led learning and partnering with mentors should be supported in the BC curriculum.
comparing the current and proposed curriculum:
Here is the Grade 7 current outcomes for earth science. Looking at the list I know right away what my kid knows and is able to use this knowledge without having to check with Google.
accurately list the characteristics of each layer of the Earth
construct a flow chart to explain in detail the geological
processes involved in forming minerals and rocks
catalogue the properties of rock and mineral samples (e.g.,
cleavage, colour, crystal habit, fracture, hardness, lustre, and
streak) on the basis of a detailed examination
• analyse the dynamics of tectonic
plate movement and landmass
formation
explain how earthquakes have helped scientists understand
the Earth’s structure (e.g., primary and secondary seismic
waves)
detail the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes, and fault
boundaries on the Earth’s crust
model tectonic plate movement to show convergent,
divergent, and transform plate boundaries
• explain how the Earth’s surface
changes over time
explain how scientists use the placement and position of an
object to infer the time of events (e.g., superposition)
illustrate how fossils come to be associated with sedimentary
rock
report on how fossil record is used to identify Millennium
changes in the Earth’s surfaces
And here is what is being proposed:
• analyse the dynamics of
tectonic plate movement and
landmass formation
• predict how given natural
events help scientists
understand earth’s structure
• propose solutions to technical
problems (e.g., seismic
upgrading to buildings near
fault lines)
—> ok, something is fundamentally wrong here: to analyse the dynamics you actually must have knowledge of the earth crusts and the processes. Should we as parents expect that knowledge from our 7 graders or not? #2 “predict how given natural
events help scientists understand earth’s structure” – what was wrong with that outcome before when it was “explain how earthquakes have helped scientists understand the Earth’s structure (e.g., primary and secondary seismic waves)”, how can anyone predict how something is going to help someone to understand something better????? what a poor attempt to “futurise” a concept.
#3 propose solutions to technical problems (e.g., seismic
upgrading to buildings near fault lines)- how can one propose solutions if they don’t possess basic knowledge.
Also, the general question: this curriculum that is being proposed, looks like an attempt to put less and less pressure on government, more room for generalisation. it also takes pressure off from children, they don’t have to memorise anything, just rely on wikipedia and google. so then in order to have an intelligent conversation with someone we will have to make sure they have wifi access?
Why does it need to change statement in the overview says:
Current curriculum tends to focus on teaching children factual content rather than concepts and processes – emphasizing what they learn over how they learn, which is exactly the opposite of what modern education should strive to do. In today’s technology-enabled world, students have virtually instant access to a limitless amount of information. The greater value of education for every student is not in learning the information but in learning the skills they need to successfully find, consume, think about and apply it in their lives.” – here is what I think about this. Imagine the internet is cut off, or extremely regulated, or absolutely unavailable for other reasons, the kids don’t know Pythagorean theorem, value of Pi, organic chemistry reaction types, even nowadays without calculators they can’t multiply or divide four digit numbers, in fifth grade they don’t know names of the countries of the world (who am i kidding some adults don’t know that) etc etc. Without internet, but with creativity and art they are going to start drawing petroglyphs and reinvent the wheel. Without factual knowledge and overabundence of “experts” on the internet, how does one expect children to sort through the piles of information? Factual knowledge is essential for an educated person, not use of computers. Computers and technology come naturally to these kids. They don’t need training in that. only by having a strong factual basis can one make an informed decision and have a critical thinking. Without facts, the kids will be sheeple, easy to persuade, easy to lead.
I totally agree with Louise, I can’t stress enough to people the importance of both the connection between creativity and artistic learning to today’s economic realities and being able to thrive in the new environment. Implementing your individual talents with applied skills,more important than ever. If you haven’t seen Phil Jarvis’ Career Cruising Perfect Storm Rationale, take a look. http://public.careercruising.com/pdfs/Perfect_Storm_Rationale.pdf
Thank you for sharing this link with us, Lynn. This report seems to confirm what we have heard from other sources, namely that there is a pending qualified worker shortage and we must act now to prepare students for the jobs of the future. The Skills and Training Plan (http://www.bcjobsplan.ca/skills-and-training-plan/) describes how the government intends to do that.
I think that the grad program doesn’t need a lot of re-engineering. The one big thing I would like to see addressed is that while there are requirements in all of the “academic” areas (English, Math, Science and Socials) up to grade 11, the only requirement for applied skills and fine or performing arts is one course, somewhere between grade 10-12. I feel that this is a terribly skewed way of looking at the importance of real world skills and the arts.
I think it is a great way for editing houses to make more money, recycling some old textbook, adding a few bells and whistles, colour, beautiful pictures,… the marketing touch, in short!
I think it would be more efficient to transform the spelling system which is ill-formed (91 spelling IRREGULAR rules where most Western languages have 50 REGULAR rules). Google reforming-english and go to my blog since this website is blocking the link. Censorship? OF COURSE!
We take our Moderation Policy seriously and work hard to uphold it. If a comment is rejected, it is for a clear violation of one or more of the terms, not because we disagree with it. We strive to remain entirely neutral.
With regards to your comment above, I wonder if you can connect it more closely with the question we’ve asked. How, in your opinion, will reforming our spelling system help with the larger task of reforming BC curriculum? As this is a community forum, we’ll leave it for others to repond to your reply but will chime in where/if we’re needed.
Sure! To me it is simple! I feel that this is beating around the bush and that reforming the curriculum is not tackling the underlying issue, which is –according to eminent linguists like Chomsky, Betts, and Yule, not to mention G. B. Shaw, Carnegie, Twain, and others– much more important. You (the ministry) want students to be critical learners? You want them to be the best of the best? Is your system the best? No! Your spelling system is the worst of all Western languages! Yet, everyone has to be better! Every programs have to be better! It seems to me that the ability to decode (or read) is CRUCIAL in schools, still! If one cannot decode, one cannot comprehend AND be a critical reader and learn. Sure, many people __eventually– learn to memorize that “e” is sometimes not “e” and “a” is sometimes not “a”, and so one and so forth! Of the 7000 common words in English, about 3700 of them do not follow the rules? Well! That’s grand! And, I assume you, the ministry, want us to follow rules! Well! Let me suggest you start making rules and sticking to those rules! I am speaking about the 91 spelling rules! Then, and only then, teachers, kids, parents,… will consider changing the curriculum.
BTW, I continue to be unable to make a simple link to my website (which inform the public about this cause), which I was able to do in the past. Could you please tell me why this is so ro correct the issue? Thank you.
Here is the link to Peter’s website if you’re interested:
http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/
Oh! Thank you!
[Note: We've posted this comment here with the author's permission]
TOWARDS A NEW CURRICULUM:THE CURRICULUM OF DAILY LIFE:
In response to Jim Holz’s column ‘Following the Yellow Brick Road to oblivion’, [vancouver sun, sept 19th,2012] I would like to advance the following propositions:
1. Effective living in the 21rst Century requires,as Mr. Holz states, ‘that the public be well-informed and knowledgeable’.
2. But such an outcome is only possible if the public develops a life-long love of learning- a willingness and ability to master information that can be transformed into knowledge that is applicable to the ever-changing conditions of existence;
3. As Science long ago discovered, knowledge comes from the inter-action of vision-ie. concepts and reality-one must validate the other in order to become relevant;
4. To learn effectively requires the acquisition of skills needed to determine what is relevant to a given situation such as searching, evaluating interpreting and synthesizing information;
5. The concept of ‘relevance’ begs the questions of relevant to whom and for what purpose;
6. To answer these questions requires that the focus be on the
learner and his/her socio-cultural background;
7. Given the globalization processes at work, it is necessary to view knowledge and its relevance from diverse view points;
8. At the same time, a common fate requires the development of shared values/concepts and capacities for effective participation in every day life;
9.To make, as Mr. Holz asserts, ‘informed decisions that society requires’ suggests that consideration be given to the context within which this knowledge will be developed and applied;
10 Given the global nature of the issues and of possible approaches to dealing with them requires a resiliency and flexibility of mind which only a supportive setting rich in positive learning opportunities can nurture;
11. Given the uneven distribution of such learning opportunities at the local and global levels, it follows that
‘relevancy’ will be interpreted differently by different actors;
12. A major factor in the reluctance of learners to absorb the words of ‘the sage on the stage’ is the perception that they have no relevance to the present and future prospects of the recipients of this wisdom;
13. In fact, the tendency of formal educational institutions has been to cater to the interests and needs of the 20% that are inclined/pushed towards academic post-secondary education;
14. To confine learning experiences to formal institutions is to ignore the curriculum of daily life which all people-young and old- experience and from which much of their knowledge emerges;
15. To enhance the positive learning opportunities of every day life requires that the formal educational processes blend seamlessly with the non-formal learning of after-school/work activities and with the informal learning inherent in the family and in various institutions of civic governance, business, social-cultural services and recreation;
16. Where, as in low-income neighbourhoods, positive learning opportunities are meager, active interventions from formal educational institutions are required;
17. The relevancy of these propositions can be validated by observing what is happening in the various spheres of education and of every day life today.
Frank offers an interesting response to Jim’s op-ed piece in the Vancouver Sun. That article can be found at:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Op-Ed/Opinion+school+curriculum+means+following+Yellow+Brick+Road/7262475/story.html
Where do you stand on the topic of curriculum transformation? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you…Frank…
Nicely stated…
I think you would be way smarter in transforming the English spelling system instead of transforming the curriculum. (How many times do you need to transform it before you get it right anyway?). The Sullivan commission was not costly or remarkable enough for you?
Patching the holes of a sinking submarine is fruitless: many inside will drown, which is what is happening.
Google reforming-english and visit my blog for more info on the notion that it is the spelling system that is disabling students, teachers, and the education system at large. Students, teachers, the curriculum are NOT disabled, English is!
Dear Peter Mare,
We have seen your comments on every page of this website. Your idea of the English language reform has a right to exist, no doubt. English Language is one of the harder to learn languages, however, generations of people were able to master it. I am an immigrant and I speak slavic, turkic and germanic languages and assure you that every language has it’s difficulties. I think that education in North America is a “sinking submarine” due to absolutely different reasons. It is also irrational to try to reform language artificially, when it is already evolving. Language will change and technology will do it’s work. BC, Canada is not the only country using English, neither does BC Ministry of Education have a mandate to reform a language that is universal, so why are you wasting your time here?
Hi,
We won’t be posting any more comments on this topic. If anyone wishes to discuss reforming spelling further we invite you to visit Peter’s blog and comment there:
http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/
Thanks,