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.