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….