Page Content
Curriculum report contains positive aspects while raising serious concerns
As a professor who works with both preservice and inservice teachers at the University of Alberta, and as a member of the Alberta Education Teacher and Educator Focus Group Committee (Social Studies) during the previous government’s curriculum redesign process, I awaited the release of the Curriculum Advisory Panel’s report with great interest. Below, I briefly share my analysis of its recommendations.
The positives
The panel recommends that the government develop a “comprehensive plan” and “a broad range of resources” to support curriculum implementation. This is crucial. Teachers need long-term professional learning opportunities and high-quality resources to support them in their efforts to become proficient with a new curricular mandate.
Recommendation 12 advises including Indigenous histories and perspectives to advance the “recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the calls for justice in the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Final Report” and recommendation 13 counsels to “ensure curriculum reflects the diversity of Alberta’s students.” Excellent. We can no longer ignore the histories and perspectives of Indigenous peoples in all of our curricula.
There is already very good work being done on this, which means there is much to build on. I hope that, with the latter recommendation, the advisory panel is being inclusive of not only ethnic diversity but also other forms of diversity, as well as learning about the forms of oppression that accompany them. Every day there are reports of racism and other acts of discrimination in the news. We have a duty to teach about these and work to eradicate systemic oppression from our society.
The maybes
There are two recommendations specific to history education: “Develop a senior high school program of studies in world history” and “Ensure significant world events are represented in curriculum.” I am supportive of this provided that the focus is not on memorizing dates, places, names and events but more so on developing students’ “historical thinking.” This approach provides opportunities for students to learn how to analyze primary and secondary historical sources, analyze change over time, assess the historical significance of people and events from the past, analyze multiple historical perspectives on global issues, and make connections between global events to their lives and to contemporary society. There’s great potential here.
Another recommendation is to “support opportunities to consult with subject-matter experts throughout the development of curricular content.” It is not clear if panel members mean curriculum and pedagogy scholars like me, who specialize in teaching and learning in school subject areas, or if they mean specialists like historians and mathematics scholars, who specialize in related academic disciplines. I hope they mean both, as both have a lot to offer to the process.
The negatives
The advisory panel has taken an extremely limited view of the purpose of education by focusing almost exclusively on job readiness. This is not a visionary approach to education. Yes, most people have to work. But the education that students experience should inspire them, nurture their creative and critical thinking, and expose them to ideas that stretch their imaginations and confront their misconceptions. It should help them understand how knowledge is produced in the sciences, humanities, arts and social sciences, and teach them how to evaluate and critique knowledge claims made in these domains. It should teach them how to build understanding across differences, identify injustices and develop strategies to make our society more just for all. It should help them create the future they want. Surely we want for our children an education system that does all of these things, and more?
The report also recommends implementing “standardized formative assessment tools” in grades 1–5. There is so much to say about this, but let me start here: how about we trust the highly trained professionals who spend their days closely monitoring and assessing student learning, differentiating their instruction as required, to make judgments on student progress and put the considerable funds it would take to implement this recommendation into classroom supports instead?
What else?
I have other serious concerns about some of the advisory panel’s recommendations. If you would like a more in-depth critique, you can find it posted on my Twitter account @cpeck3. ❚
Carla L. Peck, PhD, is a former elementary school teacher who is now a professor of social studies education at the University of Alberta.
