The articles by Nancy Janovicek,[1] Carol Anne Wien, and Curt Dudley-Marling[2] spoke to the negatives of Canadian education curriculums in the later eighteenth century. The problem with the articles is their arguments are naïve and neglect the absurdity of the historical complaints and the problems that have subsequently emerged. The common neglect for the Chant Report[3] and Common Curriculum[4] have influenced the creation of an education system that is built upon pleasing all and pertaining to a multicultural identity.
Janovicek’s recognition of the Chant Report and mention of specific groups and cultures which prioritized non-conformity in order to carry out traditional and preferred ways of living is a problem which is recognized today and has created issues in education development. The fact that “parents refused to send [children] to school… [because] the public school system would assimilate their children into mainstream society”[5] questions where the line must be drawn in order to sustain nationalism in Canada. When do we exceed the limits of multiculturalism and diversity by pertaining to the needs and beliefs of other cultures? If we haven’t already seen it in the lower mainland of British Columbia, when do people and cultures just become independent subunits of a multi-cultural land rather than interactive and appreciative of all cultures? If we continue to teach children to be completely independent and create schools that separate children based on beliefs and culture Canada will become a separatist region. If we continue to prioritize the independence and freedom to childhood education how will we ever maintain, or create, a country that is unified.
The Ontario Curriculum is not as terrible as Wien and Morning make it out to be. The implementation of learning based outcomes is far from a crime, but is presented as such. This article is very opinionated, it ripped apart a system that could be argued was intended to prevent issues we face in the educational system today. The highly appreciated movement at the time to “student ownership of learning”[6] neglected any form of teacher authority and by taking this away a valuable lesson of respect was disregarded and subsequently the creation of “the me, me, me generation”[7] has been implemented– “many regard today’s youths as narcissistic, self- centered, confident and individualistic. It’s clear that an increased focus on yourself leads to a devaluation of other people.”[8]
Prescribed learning outcomes are not seen as a guideline but rather a narrow and controlling vision of teaching, learning, and both diversity and ecology.[9] Parents complain teachers must be more free in their teaching and claim education is “always uncertain, ambiguous, contested, and conflicted”[10] but this is unrealistic. If children are to move on in education there has to be set “will do’s”[11] to ensure their success. Sadly, the real world is not rainbows and butterflies, it is a place where people fight daily to gain and maintain their identify and if we allow children who lack fully developed cognitive functions to choose what and how they want to learn then are they learning, or are we failing in producing well-rounded learners? There is a lesson to be learned in trying things that do not come easily, but we disregard this concept and society acts as if a child struggling is the end of the world when really “letting your child struggle and even fail sometimes can be highly beneficial to his or her development.”[12] If we completely eliminate structure and prescribed learning outcomes we are setting up children for either a rude awakening or failure when they emerge into adulthood. We are tainting early childhood education with a false reality. If elementary education takes away the authority of teacher’s children will value their perspectives over others and live for what works best according to them. By giving children the ability to determine their learning we are teaching them they need only experience what they please, thus inhibiting their potential to be diverse.
Both articles are very strongly written and take their allegations too far. Canada is known for our freedom but Sven Mørch states “the rebellion from the 68ers led to great freedom, but it also left people with the task of having to cope with all this freedom.”[13] We now must maintain a society that provokes this identity and stays true to the roots we have planted, but the task is harder than it may seem. In terms of education we are at a loss as discipline and authority are not tolerated, but realistically teach valuable lessons, “today’s youths are out of touch with some of the fundamental principles of life because teachers, parents and social workers are worried about infringing the child’s autonomy and integrity.”[14] The strive for independence in learning and freedom of the child to learn in ways best for them also inhibits the learning of other valuable lessons not pertaining to algebra and writing. These articles make valid allegations but lack important recognition of how these issues have lived on and impacted education today.
[1] Janovicek, Nancy. “‘The community school literally takes place in the community’: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-land-Movement in the West Kootenays, 1959 to 1980.” Historical Studies in Education, 24, 1(Springer 2012): 150-169
[2] Wien, Carol Anne and Curt Dudley-Marling. “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 400-412.
[3] Janovicek. “’The community school literally takes place in the community’: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-land-Movement in the West Kootenays, 1959 to 1980.”
[4] Wien and Dudley-Marling. “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.”
[5] Ibid. 156.
[6] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 401.
[7] Karkov, R. “Understanding Today’s rude teens.” (2012). Retrieved from http://sciencenordic.com/understanding-today’s-rude-teens
[8] Ibid.
[9] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 402.
[10] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 409.
[11] Ibid. 401.
[12] Brunson, D. “Benefits of Struggling: Are You Helping Your Child Too Much?” Connections Academy. (2014). Retrieved from http://blog.connectionsacademy.com/benefits-of-struggling-are-you-helping-your-child-too-much/
[13] Karkov, R. “Understanding Today’s rude teens.”
[14] Ibid.
