Perhaps it is because the process is in its earliest stages, or perhaps it is because Albertans are finally getting used to the Notley government, but reaction to the province’s plans to revamp the school curriculum has been surprisingly civil. There has really been no shrill chorus of knee-jerk criticism from the usual suspects and that kind of makes one think: This is an idea whose time is long overdue, even with an estimated tab of $64 million.
Education Minister David Eggen, a former junior high science teacher, announced this week that the entire Alberta curriculum, from kindergarten to Grade 12, will be reviewed and rewritten within the next 18 months. The province also promises to look into the way standardized provincial exams are written for Grades 6, 9 and 12. The province promises to have the first changes in place for Kindergarten to Grade 4 by 2020 with the older grades to follow.
This is one ambitious undertaking and one that promises to look at indigenous history and culture, climate change, mental health, computer coding and sexual and gender diversity while also focusing on the fundamentals of math, reading and writing. It also promises to update some subject areas, such as art, which have not changed in decades.
It is important to remember, in the face of this mammoth undertaking, that a curriculum is not a how-to guide for teachers. Rather it is little more than a long, but crucial, list of objectives they are professionally obliged to meet to the best of their abilities. By the end of Grade 1, for example, the curriculum stipulates that students must be reading or adding at certain levels. Or, by the end of Grade 5, say, students must have some idea of the workings of Canada’s government. How this teaching takes place, is up to teachers. It is their job and this should not change. Families in this province are already offered a wide variety of teaching styles through special programs such as academic challenge, charter schools and Cogito.
The province is also promising that it will not impose these educational changes from above, but rather in consultation with teachers and others. Parents will also be invited to share their thoughts on what happens in the classroom. This process should draw some interesting responses, but first and foremost all of those involved would do well to remember that publicly-funded schools are for students, not parents, not teachers and not special interest groups.
Another of the proposals for the curriculum is to incorporate subjects into each lesson. For instance, students might learn how calculating logarithms can help them solve chemistry problems. It must be said that many good teachers have already been doing this for years, maybe now, more will follow. A curriculum that allows teachers to teach subjects with more depth and focus can only help.
While Eggen appears to be bubbling with enthusiasm to begin these changes, a little caution must also be exercised. Many areas of our provincial educational system have worked well and continue to work well. While our collective international math scores may have fallen, this review provides excellent opportunity to find out why and to address the problems. It doesn’t mean that everything is rotten nor that everything must be fixed to reflect the trends of the day.
