More Chime in on BCED's shortcomings

From time to time I will be posting other articles, blog postings and other contributions that concerned parents/educators have published.

I just re-read this the other day, and it is such a well written piece, I would like to share it once again.  David Livingstone is Chair of Political Studies at Vancouver Island University. He's also a Dad, to 2 kids in our public education system, and is dismayed at the latest rendition that has come from the joint collaboration effort between our BCTF Committees and the Ministry of Education.  Here's David's excellent editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun last January.  Unfortunately the link does not work, so I am copying his editorial here, for all to read.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/opinion+revised+public+school+curriculum+preparing/11655627/story.html

Opinion: B.C.’s revised public school curriculum: Preparing for a Brave New World?

BY DAVID LIVINGSTONE, SPECIAL TO SUN JANUARY 15, 2016

What will become of Canadian democracy if we don’t cultivate a love of reading and a capacity to understand difficult books? Simple: The next generation will lack the desire, the ability, and even the attention span to read with understanding.

An ambitious new public school curriculum produced by “educational experts” is set to be unveiled in every B.C. school affecting every student in every grade. Yet few parents I have talked with know their children are about to become the subjects in a very ambitious social experiment based on some questionable hypotheses.

The new curriculum is designed for the “21st century learner” for whom, we are told by the Ministry of Education, learning facts will become less important.

Now, as a university professor, I happen to notice quite a few students in my introductory classes arrive knowing very few facts about Canadian history or government. Nevertheless, the new curriculum will “emphasize higher-order concepts over facts to enable deeper learning and understanding” (“Enabling Innovation: Transforming Curriculum and Assessment,” 2012). Facts would seem to get in the way of 21st century learning.

“Big Ideas” will be emphasized, even though the Social Science 10 draft curriculum, covering the incredibly rich and complex period from 1919 to the present, culminates remarkably in only four of them.

One such Big Idea is that “Development in Canadian society can be viewed in many different ways depending on an individual’s worldview or experience.” But I’m afraid this idea won’t encourage learning or “discovery.”

First, it’s the conclusion to which the selected facts remaining in the curriculum must be marshalled. Students won’t be encouraged to discover any Big Ideas themselves; they will be led to idea already planted by the experts. It resembles a game of geocaching, not an honest search for truth.

Second, it extinguishes the motive for learning. It declares an obvious fact — people have different “worldviews” — implying, furthermore, that each is equally valid. What’s the point of learning if we already “know” that every perspective is equally valid or (what amounts to the same thing) that each perspective is equally invalid? It won’t take long for students to “discover” the whole exercise is pointless.

Our kids deserve what schools used to claim to teach: How to evaluate carefully and critically different perspectives, especially their own. And they need to know facts to support their reasoning. That used to be the point of a liberal education, which intended to free people from the “worldview” society imposes on them, not have them wallow in it.

We are also informed that “Deeper learning is better achieved through ‘doing’ than through passive listening or reading” (Curriculum Redesign). It is ironic that we “learn” this “fact” by reading it, yet it establishes a false dichotomy. Anyone who reads a really good book knows they are “doing” something. Abraham Lincoln learned by reading Shakespeare, and Winston Churchill profited by reading Aristotle’s Ethics. Their deep learning led the former to end slavery in the United States and the latter to defend western civilization against Nazi tyranny. Their “actions” were predicated on their knowledge, gleaned in no small part through reading great books.

Reading calls upon powers of attentiveness and imagination that passive forms of entertainment — like watching YouTube videos and 15-second “Vines” — don’t. To its credit, the new curriculum mentions the importance of “literacy skills”, but it undermines itself when it declares reading is merely “passive” or, worse, superficial learning. What will become of Canadian democracy if we don’t cultivate a love of reading and a capacity to understand difficult books? Simple: The next generation will lack the desire, the ability, and even the attention span to read with understanding. Their thoughts will become shallower, not deeper. And the accumulated wisdom we could draw upon to guide us will slowly recede into oblivion.

No longer tethered to the past, the future will look more like a blank canvas upon which “the experts” can plan a Brave New World, filling our minds with carefully curated Big Ideas. When introducing the ambitious new curriculum planning, then-Education Minister George Abbott wrote: “We need to set the stage for parents, teachers, administrators and other partners to prepare our children for success not only in today’s world but in a world that few of us can imagine” (B.C.’s Education Plan, 2012). Our guide will no longer be the wisdom and experience of history, but rather an unimaginable future. Parents should be suspicious of the notion that “21st century learners” don’t need a thorough study of facts and history and respect for great books in our tradition.

If history demonstrates one thing, it’s that the dream experts propose for society can sometimes turn into a nightmare. Their hidden assumption is that human nature can be socially engineered. With the right methods and carefully selected “facts” the experts hope to mold a future “that few of us can imagine”, and some of us would rather not.

David Livingstone teaches political philosophy and liberal studies and is chair of political studies at Vancouver Island University.  (david.livingstone@viu.ca )