Harold Jarche

Gilbert asked how I defined curriculum in my last post. There are many definitions, but I specifically meant curriculum as the pre-determined set of subjects, objectives, tests and lessons that constitute public education. Of particular note is that the students have no input or choice in the curriculum. I am not referring to university curriculum, where students have choice, or training, which is set by employers or other authorities.

First, do we need curriculum? Our official objective in NewBrunswick is:

To have each student develop the attributes needed to be a lifelong learner, to achieve personal fulfillment and to contribute to a productive, just and democratic society.

Predefined curriculum is not a necessary ingredient to fulfill this mission, and that is my prime concern. Someone far removed from the learner, and even the teacher, decides what is best for everyone. For example, someone decides that children study about the Great War but not the Suffragette Movement.

My issue is first that the public school curriculum, as it is implemented, is based on subjects and not processes (e.g. critical thinking; research methods; logic; etc). Secondly, I know from experience that the NB Department of Education does not have a process by which its subject-based curriculum is developed. Basically, a number of “experts” are put in a room for a week and when it’s over they have developed a curriculum. It is a rather black art. There are no first principles on which a subject’s curriculum is based so one cannot go back and determine if the subject is still relevant, if it ever was.

Curriculum, as currently practised, constrains learners, as there is no room for exploration because the teachers must cover what’s on the curriculum. This is the flaw in being subject-based. If education were process-based, then teachers could facilitate learning using a variety of subject areas. Why should I learn about history when I am more interested in art? Can’t I learn critical thinking in either discipline? Such an approach would mean giving up control, and that of course is the real issue. Once again from Brian Alger:

Challenging the validity of curriculum in any form means to challenge people’s jobs whether they are political officials, school administrators, consultants, teachers, students or parents. Part of the immense control and authority that curriculum has is that it provides careers and therefore sources of income. This, in my own experience, is where I have found the most significant roadblock to change and innovation.

So how can students become “lifelong learners” when they are told what to do, when to do it (in 50 minute increments), and what is important by an authority figure? Luckily, many children learn in spite of schooling.

Are there other options? Here’s just one – The Best Learning Experience Ever.

As I listen to comments on the Liberal government’s decision to axe early French immersion (EFI) in New Brunswick, I’m reminded once again that we have become so accustomed to the ground of schooling that we no longer see it for the restrictive institution that it has become. I return to Brian Alger’s post on curriculum:

One of the effects of curriculum design of any kind is confinement. And the confinement of human experience is an act of violence. A common example of this confinement via curriculum leading to violence is bullying.

Some of the written comments [spelling unchanged from original comments] on this CBC story are equally bullying:

• The Government would have been better served years ago if they had said that all Governmet business would be conducted in the language of majority in Canada and that is ENGLISH
  
• do away with bilingualism, the french have all the government jobs anway
• Why don’t we the province of NB have english emmerison in french schools? ANYONE!!! Wouldn’t it make more sence to teach both groups both language then all of our kids would have the same chance in head of the class?
• Why do you think any body wants their children to learn a base in french, when their are plenty of useful things to learn. When will you get it thru your indoctrinated appeasement thinking,that we want our kids EDUCATED!

When it comes to public education, everyone is an expert but no one knows what will work best for all students, because there is no single answer. Whatever curriculum is chosen will be constraining and bullying on someone and perhaps many. Our education system, based on the Prussian military school model with core subjects copied, and mostly unchanged, from Harvard’s 1890’s example, is seldom questioned.

The Minister of Education is using his powers to change the curriculum and now a different group of parents feels bullied. Others, who have felt bullied by the existence of French culture and language feel empowered to taunt this group. No matter what happens, someone will feel like the victim at the end of this. Curriculum is the confinement of the human experience. It is a blunt tool that winds up bullying someone. It’s time to throw this tool away, but first we have to sincerely ask why we’re using it in the first place.

More on Public Education

While the Minister of Education in New Brunswick tinkers with the school system and abolishes Early French Immersion, [more info here] the Finns are quietly ensuring a high quality education system for all. Via Sara Bennett, is this post on lessons to be learned from the Finnish school system. The highlights, in my opinion:

School doesn’t start until age 7, but a government funded preschool program concentrates on self-reflection and social behaviour:

It is interesting to note that one of the most notable attributes of Finnish children is their level of personal responsibility. The early focus on self-reflection is seen as a key component for developing that level of responsibility towards learning.

The Finns realize that 50% of students are above average while 50% are below average in academic proficiency, so there is a vocational and university track in high school, and neither is stigmatized. Separation does not happen until the 9th year, and there is little grading in earlier years. Attendance at universities and polytechnics is free.

I’ve listened to the French immersion debate and have been involved from several perspectives, but I’m coming to realize that EFI is not the issue. Is our government spending time and money on the symptoms of our sick industrial school system in order to divert us from the root causes of dysfunction? If enough parents and educators spend their precious discretionary time on the French immersion red herring, perhaps no one will notice that millions of dollars are being wasted elsewhere.

This afternoon the router wasn’t working and both boys (Grade 8 and 10) had a short-lived panic episode, as they needed to get on the Net to do some schoolwork; assigned today and due tomorrow. Of course, they cannot do homework without Net access.

It appears that the school here has done a pretty good job of off-loading much of its work to third parties:

• There are few up to date books in the library
• There are few computers at school; time has to be booked; they are blocked from many sites; and they are slow.
• Spare classes are not allowed (can’t control the kids), so there’s no time to do research at school anyway.
• Homework is assigned to be done at home, where at least our kids have high speed Internet access and a quiet place to do work, not like at school.

On top of all this off-loading of access to knowledge, not once has either of our teenagers received any instruction at school on how to do research, or how to check a source. I have set up a list of Student Resources for them, but no teacher has ever done that. No teacher has created a Wikipedia entry or shown how to do it, and Wikipedia is the main reference (next to Google search) that students seem to use.

The school administration goes on about quality education but they are being completely bypassed in knowledge gathering, basic research, and connecting to these young learners. Where are the teachers in our community using the Internet to connect with their students? I fear that far too many are hiding behind the walls of the institution and the comfort blanket of the union.

At this rate, it will soon be obvious to all that there is little value in actually attending school. Around here, in New Brunswick, Canada, the schools are making themselves rather redundant.

Daniel Lemire, researcher and someone who knows more math than I can imagine, debunks the common knowledge view that you need to go to a quality  university to get a quality education:

More generally, if you want to know how to get really smart, go watch what really smart people do. How does the famous professor learn? Does he spend days in lecture halls listening to some colleague? Nah! I bet you will find him interacting with some of the smartest people in the world every day, and spending a lot of time working in his office, crouched over his desk. My point is that you do not get smart by sitting in lecture halls. You get smarter by working at it. Smartness is not contagious, at least not by physical contact.

I am in the process of writing a proposal for consulting services to help develop an online learning strategy for a university. Daniel’s point  confirms our premise in the proposal that it’s getting easier to connect with knowledge and knowledgeable people, without jumping through what are becoming arbitrary academic hoops.

The Web is making everyone (at least the one billion who are currently connected) only a few clicks away from each other. Add in free Voice over IP, video conferencing, lectures online and YouTube presentations and voilà  – a new platform for learning. It’s time for universities to think about a new role as learning enablers and no longer gatekeepers because the horse (knowledge) has escaped the barn.

Diana Hamilton, and Matthew Litvak, both who have taught statistics at the university level, have several criticisms of the recent Croll and Lee Review of French Second Language Programs and Services New Brunswick’s schools. They have set up a blog, as well as a detailed analysis of the flaws:

To summarize, EFI [early French immersion] produces better French speakers, costs less on a per-student basis, and has essentially the same attrition rate as LFI [late French immersion]. The logical choice is to retain EFI. Core French certainly needs to be fixed, but we have found no justification in this document for eliminating EFI in the process. We strongly suggest that the central recommendation of this report not be adopted; it will lead to a reduction in French competence of hundreds of graduates per year, and result in a general lowering of standards. Numerous education experts have stated that EFI is the best program, and based on our analysis, we fully agree.

We feel that many of the legitimate shortcomings in New Brunswick FSL [French as a Second Language] programs that the Commissioners have identified can be addressed more effectively as follows:

• by providing adequate resources to support a wider range of French-language course options and flexibility in Grades 10-12 in order to reduce early drop-out;
• by providing adequate support for exceptional children in EFI and LFI classes so that FSL training becomes available to these children;
• by actively promoting the benefits of learning French and encouraging all students equally.