Canada is one of the one only developed nations in the world without a national education strategy. This is due to the structure and distribution of powers established by our federal government. Our government system is set up in a post-modern way with a central government controlling issues of national interest, while powers of more local interest are delegated to the provinces. This creates an interesting dichotomy as issues such as health care and education are provincially managed, but receive some funding from the federal level (when I say education in this context, think post-secondary).
If we, as a society, are concerned about establishing a "Canadian" curriculum, shouldn't we have a framework upon which to build it? Aren't we doomed for regionalization of curriculum documents if we lack a national platform for educational development and discussion?
Most developed countries have education as a responsibility of their federal government. After all, the federal government is also concerned about research and innovation, economic development, productivity and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Recent statistics have shown that, compared to similar countries, we have lower worker productivity and workplace literacy skills. As we shift to a knowledge-based society, we seem to be lagging behind.
What are some of the benefits of a national education strategy? National standards would help ensure that all Canadian students were being exposed to a certain set of key outcomes. This way, the government would be able to compare educational programming and achievement in rural British Columbia, to suburban Toronto, to metropolitan Halifax. To improve our economy, a national education strategy could focus on implementing common objectives that are needed to be successful in the modern workforce. A common strategy would also enable the government to better promote a sense of national identify and common norms, values, and mores.
Many people seem to fear the concept of a national strategy as it might reveal the injustice being served to some regions of Canada. Maybe we would discover that some schools do not adequately prepare students for the 21st century. Maybe we would discover the glaring inequities that exist between our regions. Maybe we would see too closely that we are post-national when we are not quite ready to embrace all that it encompasses.
There are also problems with a national education strategy. Students need to be taught in a way that reflects the community in which they live. Students need to learn about what is happening in their community and how they can work to improve it. Students need curriculum that is reflective of and responsive to local social and environmental problems. As well, is it fair to compare educational achievement between vastly diverse regions? Relevant learning in one are is irrelevant in another? Who decides which knowledge is of most worth?
As Chambers wrote in her article, there needs to be a forum for Canadians to discuss curricular concerns and share their concept of "place." What makes one Canadian is more ideological than tangible, so people need to discuss it to try to make it real for the population. We need to be given experiences to FEEL what it means to be Canadian. I don't believe that it is hockey itself that makes us feel a sense of national pride, but the cold, gritty nature of the sport that appeals to us. Baseball on the other hand, is too civilized to be considered Canadian.
I feel that we do need a national education strategy, but not as a set of prescriptive outcomes set out in a pan-Canadian curriculum, but as an ideological think-tank dedicated to promoting discourse on regional educational issues and sharing our concept of "place." Even beyond that, why can't we have a national goal for educational initiatives? We are a diverse nation, but we share the same economic goal.
What makes me feel Canadian is the fact that I've travelled across Canada from Victoria to Halifax and met many interesting people along the way. Seeing our land and hearing peoples' stories makes me realize how much we all have in common and how much we have to learn from each other. Why can't we have a forum to do this in education?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your sentence that what makes you feel Canadian is the fact that you've travelled all over the country made me think of an experience I had earlier this week. I was helping a youth with her Social Studies homework (grade 9) and the question she was working on required writing 5 traits that differentiated Canada from other countries in the world, including America. This particular youth has never been more than an hour and a half outside of Winnipeg. It was a big challenge for this youth to articulate how Canada was unique, when all she'd ever experienced was one piece of the country. We discussed if there were any Canadian celebrities she could think of, and I asked if she could think of any famous Canadian landmarks and suggested some like Niagara Falls or the Rocky Mountains. When these names were unfamiliar, it made me really think about how meaningful it could be for this youth to have the opportunity to visit some of these renowned places and talk to different people and, in your words, be able to "feel" what it is like to be Canadian.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea Brad....one of the few good ideas I learned from the Thailand MOE (I realize you can read that previous sentence a few different ways....but i'll leave it as it).
ReplyDeleteThere are three streams of schools in Thailand.
1. Public schools- free for all students, funded by the government, little English instruction, instruction mostly by "stand and deliver"
2. International Schools - private, admittance by tuition, administration usually affiliated with educational system from Britain, US, Canada, Japan, Korea etc. high level focus on English and IB, AP courses.
3. English Program schools - private schools run by Thai administration, bi or tri-lingual approach, often advertise use of 'current' teaching methods with staffing or curriculum influence from overseas
Anyway, the Thai government wanted some influence over what the English schools taught but realized that they needed some flexibility in their programming to meet the specific needs of their student populations (and the requirements of their affiliations). SO...the Thai government created curriculum documents that were developed until the General Learning Outcomes. It was up the each individual English program school/division to create the next level of detail or "Specific Learning Outcomes." Every few year the Thai MOE made visits to the English Program school to check to see if the SLO's were adequately or appropriate to the GLO's.
Interesting way to go about it....could that work from a National to a provincial level here?
so brad...loved your piece and am very concerned that we have strayed a long way from a reasonable curriculum with basic skills...my sense is that we are trying to be too many things to too many people and i have simply seen too many kids slaughtered at the university level because they have been inadequately prepared for what lays ahead of them...we set a lot of kids up for failure ..."that is not our responsibility" i was politely told by one principal...nero fiddling while Rome burns!!!!!...so are you proposing a national curriculum with national exams...the pendulum swings...i am with you
ReplyDelete