New Science K – 9 Draft Curriculum Released

Last Friday at the BC Science Teacher's conference in Richmond, the Ministry of Education in collaboration with the BC Teacher's Federation released the next draft of the proposed K – 9 science curriculum for British Columbia. You may access the draft materials at:

https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/Science

Before I summarize the key points from the presentation, please note that this is, and it isn't, the process you are accustomed to for curricular renewal. Yes, the development time was short and there is no committed funds to implement, but there is also no timelines for implementation and there are multiple venues for providing feedback. So with that in mind let's take a closer look at what was released.

Friday Release

For those unable to attend the conference and the Ministry session you can find the presentation posted at www.bcscta.ca. There were three parts to the presentation:

1. Why the Changes?
2. What's been done to date?
3. What's next?

As discussed in previous posts, there is a new system wide curricular revision initiative currently underway. Science is in the first wave of development. While there seems to some attempt to brand the thinking and focus as new and innovative, in reality much of what is being discussed can be found in the front end documentation of the Pan Canadian document. Some of the words and labels are different or missing, but essentially we are striving to develop scientifically literate students within an Inquiry-Based learning environment. This goal has been in BC Science curriculum for a couple of decades and I am glad to see that focus continues to be important.

Much of the presentation focused on process and it was good to hear the voices from the BCTF members of the committee as well. Curriculum development is difficult work. I believe a key for teachers to understand the changes is to participate in the discussion and to make sense of the words on the paper that define what we are mandated to teach. I think a key belief from the committee, and the Ministry, is that there will be less of everything so that teachers have more time to explore various interests of their students. While I totally support this direction, I think it's also important to have some guidelines and markers for teachers to use as they develop their program.

At this point, the documents on-line may not have enough support to clarify what it will all look like at the end of the day. While this may make many feel uncomfortable right now, I think it is clear from the committee that the intent is to be somewhat vague at this point in the development. Many times it was mentioned in the presentation that your feedback and your opinions matter. It was stressed your feedback would guide the next steps .

This view was confirmed when I met with Ministry Curriculum Manager, Brent Munro after the conference. He wanted me to pass on to folks the reassurance that all feedback submitted to the Ministry will be reviewed. Once analyzed the draft document could undergo revisions with the existing committee, a new committee or tweaked in-house if folks are generally happy with the current draft. So, over the next couple of months, I encourage you to review the draft online or download a copy. Share your thoughts with colleagues and provide the Ministry and BCTF with your thoughts. Information on how to submit your review will be posted at:

https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/node/2314. Or, you can share your thoughts at www.bcscienceinteractions.com

As a starting point to this discussion, I share the following scope and sequence chart I crafted showing the flow of topics from K to 9. Below each topic is the Big Idea from the curriculum. Having produced textbooks since 1998 with the Big Idea as the organizing structure, it's nice to see this feature now in the curriculum.This interpretation is mine and I hope it helps to move the conversation forward over the next months.

Next time we'll focus on how Inquiry-Based learning is being reflected in the draft document.

A Reply to BC Politicians about e-Textbooks

During the recent BC election there was a talk about the benefits of e-textbooks without a lot of thinking about the actual cost verses the perceived savings. The following note was sent to the CBC morning show, On the Island, in response to a rather shallow discussion on the subject.....

As a publisher of Educational science print and digital resources, I think it's time to say the candidates on your show today need to think a bit more about accessing resources for education. Free K - 12 textbooks online? While this sounds great, it's just not a fiscal or practical reality at this time.

For example, total cost of textbooks for a grade 12 student - maybe $420. And the book is used for at least 7 years. OK, that's $70 per year for that student to have all the information he or she needs to complete an academic course load.

Access the books online at home:

Cost of Internet $30/month

Cost of computer/tablet/any kind of smart device: $500 - $2000

Length of time device can be used: 3 - 4 years

Total Cost? More than $50 a year.

And this doesn't account for any infrastructure or training of teachers in the schools. It's time to realize we're going to have paper for a long time to come in schools and stop pretending we won't. After all, if we need a new MRI machine for Vic General or new computers for Vic High, which will the voters (and by extension our elected officials) choose?

Thanks

Part 2 – Defining Cross Curricular Competencies

The second new document from the transformation of BC Curriculum focuses on redefining our understanding of cross-curricular integration. First introduced as part of the mid 1990’s IRP as a mechanism to raise awareness and focus on particular issues that could not be directly written into the PLO’s, but could be woven into the vision of how the curriculum could be implemented in the classroom. Again, confusing curriculum documents with pedagogical strategies for learning. And while rarely implemented well, it did provide for conversations around key aspects of a child’s K to 12 experiences. While K to 12 in nature, I never really got the sense the concept in cross curricular integration worked as outlined in the IRP’s, but rather was captured by teachers in a way that worked for them in the delivery of their program. For example, if you had a passion in relation to the environment, you could utilize this cross-curricular connection in all your activities. This time, much more thinking has occurred on what is meant by cross-curricular and how they will be integrated into the new curriculum documents.

The document is divided into two main parts. First the three Cross-Curricular Competencies (CCC) are defined, and second, a framework for the CCC is provided though it is somewhat wrongly titled Proposed Definitions: the Cross-Curricular Competencies.

So, just what are Cross-Curricular Competencies? As defined in the document, they are:

“… the set of intellectual, personal, and social skills that all students need to develop in order to engage in deeper learning…”

It is suggested there are three broad cross-curricular competencies that form a framework for this idea. These are:

• Thinking competency; 
• Personal and social competency; and 
• Communication competency

Again, to quote from the document:

“Thinking competency encompasses critical, creative, and reflective thinking, represents the cognitive abilities that students develop through their studies. Personal and social competency represents the personal, social and cultural abilities that students develop as individuals and members of society. Communication competency represents the abilities students need to interact and learn effectively in their world.” (slight edit for clarity by me)

The goal is not to treat these competencies as unique and isolated, but rather combine them in a holistic manner to bring interconnected approach to student learning experiences.

The framework is then fleshed out with the following subdomains

Thinking Competency

• Critical thinking
• Creative thinking
•  Reflective thinking

Personal and Social Competency

• Positive personal and cultural identity
• Personal awareness and responsibility
• Social awareness and responsibility

Communication Competency

•  Language and symbols 
• Digital literacy

Each subdomain is a defined, described in terms of assessment and proposed support through teaching and learning. My initial response to this list is I think it captures the challenges of any teacher and any school in educating the youth of today. My worry is two fold: who decides what is appropriate for a competency, and can we afford to fund such a mandate. In terms of what is appropriate, if you read the subdomains of Personal and Social Competency, I am left wondering where is the line between families taking responsibility instead of the school. For example, what if the teacher or school have a different viewpoint on what it means to take responsibility for one’s actions? As a personal example, I was very upset when last week the RCMP officer came in to talk to my youngest son (grade 3) about safety and told him that if he was lost to find approach a woman and not a man for help. Who decided that it was a good idea to have this kind of presentation to grade 3 students? Someone made a judgment call and while it may all be appropriate, I am left wondering what other “viewpoints” are buried in my son’s mind. I’m OK with curricular-based viewpoints, but it’s a grey area when we move out of this zone. I guess the question is how far schools are expected to go with this competency?

And in terms of funding, if these competencies are the focus on our system, we are talking about a rather large change to the daily efforts of teachers. What resources will they be given to deliver this mandate? Regardless of what the various briefing notes may say about cost, any change that is meaningful requires appropriate funding. A fact that conveniently gets lost in the conversation as “something for someone else to decide.” When it comes to decision time and the Ministry of Education submits its budget estimates, these programs with long term return are the first thing to be cut by Treasury Board.

I think a comment on assessment is important at this point. There is a question in the introduction update of this document that talks about how the cross-curricular competencies will be assessed. It is clearly noted that they will be assessed by some unknown method. To me this is a key aspect of this initiative. Everyone in education knows “What you count, counts.” If we assess Learning Standards, that is what is taught. If we assess cross-curricular competencies, that is what counts. And if we don’t assess the same thing K-12 then we send a very strange message to the world about we think matters in education. My concern is that outside pressures like post-secondary institutions will ensure the status quo is maintained. After all, the whole initiative is one University Senate vote away from failure. We must agree early on how we plan to assess this new curriculum initiative and have support from all stakeholders before moving forward.

Final Thoughts ….

At this point I feel like I have been reading about the viewpoints of two different educational factions working on the same task. One produced by pragmatic educators who have a job to do each day and require a map to follow to successfully complete the job. The second viewpoint is by those who subscribe to the big picture in education and aren’t really worried about the day-to-day business of the school. Rather, they have a belief that if we talk about the big picture of what we want to achieve, then the mundane, nuts and bolts will fall out in the right places. It’s not that either group is right or wrong, but what is critical as we move forward is to have coherence between the two views.  I believe we can have both, but these views have to be coherent in the development, delivery, assessment and implementation of the new curriculum. At this point, they are not….

Transforming BC’s Curriculum

In the last month the Ministry of Education has released further documentation related to the transformation of BC’s Curriculum under the BC Education Plan. I have commented upon this plan in previous blog posts. Here are some of my initial thoughts on the work to date.

The preamble points out stakeholders from across the province were consulted to provide the conclusion:

“A more flexible curriculum that prescribes less and enables more, for both teachers and students and a system focused on the core competencies, skills and knowledge that students need to succeed in the 21^st century.”

Further comments included teachers stating the curriculum has too many PLO’s (I guess they didn’t check out the secondary science curriculum). It was felt that reducing outcomes will give more time and flexibility to allow students to explore their interests and passions. I suspect there will no new money to support these new directions. Consequently, it’s pretty safe to say that you won’t change anything if you don’t properly fund it. At the same time, it’s critical to stay abreast of these developments. Then each of us can participate in our own way to provide the feedback necessary to make the appropriate changes that work for teacher and student. It is with this thought in mind that I’ll summarize the key aspects of the work to date.

You can find the documents discussed below at http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/transforming_curriculum.php . For a somewhat humourous (?) look at how to find this page, I made a small video of my adventures on the Ministry website looking for this information. The two new documents are:

1. Exploring Curriculum Design
2. Defining Cross Curricular Competencies

The framework for these policy documents come from the Enabling Innovation report released in August 2012 and previously mentioned in blog posts.

1. Exploring Curriculum Design – January 2013

The first four pages of this report provide background on who was consulted and guiding principles for future curriculum development. When I read the guiding principles ( a concept I like in building a coherent curricular structure) I must confess that it is unclear to me the difference between prescriptive nature of current curricula and essential learning as written in the third bullet. The only difference seems to me that the people writing this document were not the people who wrote the last curriculum. Hence, their favourite material didn’t get included. And in the fourth bullet it is equally unclear how you build on higher order learning when you’re dealing with a novice learner to a particular big idea or enduring understanding. Expert problem solvers come from having a deep repertoire of background knowledge to draw upon when utilizing higher order thinking skills. This particular research based fact seems to counter the thought held by many “educational gurus” who feel a student can access higher order thinking skills by accessing a search engine to find information on any particular concept.

The second part of the document gives an overview of the different subject areas. The science summary is on page 6 where the development group indicates the focus was on Kindergarten to grade 10. A reasonable decision given the timelines. There isn’t really any ground breaking observations as most science curriculum writers in the past have figured out the difference between curricular outcomes and teaching strategies to support learning in the classroom. It appears the same cannot be said for other subject areas.

Finally a model for future curriculum development is provided along with draft prototypes. As you can see from the Science 7 draft, there are many new terms and many boxes of information to be filled. I say to be filled because the subject committees were given the same template to work with. This template is similar to other provincial and state formats (Manitoba comes to mind). It attempts to capture the complex nature of the classroom by providing a post-modern reflection of current educational thinking. There are so many different ways to look at this page, that everyone will be happy because they see their point of view reflected in the document. But, no one will be satisfied, because they don’t have a clue what to teach. So, depending of where you sit on this continuum will determine your level of comfort with this particular presentation. At the same time, it could be a very exciting time in the science education community if we could start conversations around should science be taught with a focus on Enduring Understandings or Learning Standards or Cross-Curricular Competencies. My sense is that what is likely to happen is the question will narrow down to what should go in the box labeled “Content”. And to some degree this is appropriate as it outlines what the learning map in each classroom must start to look like. The bigger question is how to we support science teachers weave in the other aspects of the proposed curriculum when there is no interest in funding these changes. The potential to have engaging, thought provoking science activities woven into the daily activities of the classroom is so great we need to let people know the extra funding for such activities is critical. I’m reminded of the comment it’s cheaper to pay up front with education then later with other government supports.

Finally there is a short section on Next Steps including a request to help in the review process by contacting the Ministry at curriculum@gov.bc.ca. I think it would be appropriate to have a real name instead of an anonymous email address.

My analysis of the second document, Defining Cross-Curricular Competencies will be in the next blog update about two weeks from now.

Leadership in the Middle

Stumbling, Falling and Not Getting Back Up With Educational Change Initiatives

I came across an interesting quote from Andrew Stanton of Pixar in a recent New Yorker article. Stanton is the lead writer for the Toy Story trilogy, Finding Nemo and Wall-E.  He was even the voice of the surfer dude Dad ‘Crush’ in Finding Nemo. As he discussed the development of a story, he made an interesting observation that goes beyond the story and screenplay. I think it succinctly describes why making systemic changes to how we operate in education is so difficult, yet everyone seems to have an answer of how to do it. In talking about creating a story he talks about how the beginning and end of any story or film is easy, it’s the middle that is difficult. He sums this up by saying:

“Any novice could start a film off or bring it to a conclusion… just as any person with decent observation skills can probably deduce if you’re sick or not. But only a doctor can diagnose what’s truly going on. You can’t fake the middle of your story; if you haven’t achieved a deep enough understanding of what your doing, it will always reveal itself in the middle.” (New Yorker, October 17, 2011; pg. 67)

The majority of educational reform initiatives do start like a story: a flurry of announcements from the government, the board or school leaders. Each one filled with the promise of something better fixing a supposed problem. The press jump into the story, cover it from two angles. A committee is formed and challenged to report back in two months. Stakeholders are represented and the story begins in earnest.

Fast forward anywhere from six months to two years and we’re in the final chapters of the story. More often than not we have three endings:

1. success with no chance of succeeding,
2. failure spun into success, and
3. lost in the noise

The first ending, success with no chance of succeeding is more common than most of us are willing to admit. Many initiatives do have solutions, but the system can’t afford the solution. Take for example teaching science in elementary schools. Study after study confirms that science is not being taught to kids. And this is sad because kids are primed for science more than other subject. They are naturally curious and willing to explore anything. The trails of adolescence are a few birthdays away and they are brimming with confidence to investigate. But, back to the research that says teachers need more training, more funding for resources and an allocation of time in the teaching day for science are the answers to solving this problem. Translated that means sustainable, targeted funding needs to be put in place. No government in North America has the courage to do this. Consequently, we have a solution to a problem that fails to be implemented.

More common is the failure spun into success. These are initiatives that have a clear and quick answer. Cost is minimal or pushed to another level of the system and everyone can claim success, point to it and then walk away from it. A bit like President Bush when he proclaimed the war on terrorism a “Job Done – Mission Accomplished.” Sadly, all that has happened is the issue is pushed underground for a few years before it rises up again. School Board budgeting deliberations fits this example very nicely. Boards are not given enough money to meet contractual obligations or Boards have created unfunded programs they wish to maintain. As a result, and especially if enrollment is declining, yearly budgets face a shortfall; and in many cases, a significant shortfall. Given the limited ability to raise additional funds, School Boards take in public consultation and many sleepless nights before difficult decisions are made to balance the budget. The majority of times, the budget is balanced and the government claims success. Sadly, no one can explain why my grade 5 son had to supervise grade 1 students at lunch. A somewhat questionable activity for a kid is the direct result of being unable to pay for adults to supervise children at lunch. The budget process was a complete failure because the root causes were not addressed, but rather a band-aid was applied to a gapping wound in the funding model. And the bleeding continued, just temporarily out of sight.

The third possibility of being lost in the noise is probably the most frustrating of the options. When an initiative works, it’s because people with very little ego and unlimited amounts of professionalism commit to making something work. The solution is not sexy, it’s pragmatic in nature and works at the grassroots. No one really takes credit for the success, but rather exploits the success to it’s full potential. Unfortunately decision makers don’t like it because they can’t point to the success and build their careers on the initiative. Many of us have been in an activity that worked, but could not be sustained or funded because it was lost in the noise. And there is a lot of noise being continually generated from various educational stakeholders and we have no method of pulling a useable signal from the noise. This needs to change.

I think it’s time we focused on the middle of the story when it comes to educational change. As Mr Stanton points out any novice can start or finish it, but it takes talent to control the middle. Isn’t that was being an educational leader is all about?