How would you change Ontario's high school curriculum?

[gristle]

I once read about an interesting school in Michigan in Psychology Today. The school allows students to do whatever they want (play instruments, write, paint, etcetera) and every student regardless of age or seniority, has an equal say in how the school is run. The only graduation requirement is to write an essay on why you think you are ready to graduate.

I really like the idea of such a school, it sounds like an educational utopia.

Actually, there have been a number of versions of this type of idea over time. Try as I might, my adult life has never been about doing whatever I wanted whenever I wanted. I doubt any human life - with the exception of the extremely wealthy or powerful - has ever consisted of just playing instruments or painting just because.

School exists for multiple purposes - including the introduction to worthwhile activities. While that may include things like painting and playing music, there is also the tougher work of understanding art history and musical theory. As whatever noted earlier, a fair degree of politics goes into determining what school ought to be about. That includes the values that inevitably shape the curriculum.

Of course, if this system were to be implemented, great care would have to be taken to ensure students spend their time productively.

What would the aim be then? That determination would define the "productivity" you seek.

But as much as I agree with you on the importance of such things, I don't think it's wise to impose things on people. It is far more important to instill a desire to learn.

As adults, we "impose" on children all the time. We equip them with "impositions" that do everything from helping them to stay alive, to enabling them to engage with other persons in a reasoned and civil manner. Schools act in the same way. The content of the curriculum is the knowledge and ideas that are considered worthy of possessing in a complex society such as hours.

For example, it may sound like fun to get to skip math class because math is hard, but mathematics helps to shape and define the world we live in, and a grasp of it enables people to understand critical aspects of our everyday life. No one is suggesting that every student should become a mathematician, but that they acquire at least a minimal degree of competency of the mathematical tools that will allow them the basics to "read" the basics of mathematical expression. In effect, there is a real need for minimum standards of competency, and these must be set.

I think one of the greatest problems in our society is the prevalence of fear and unhappiness. These emotions have become so prevalent due to what I feel are short-sighted opinions that we perpetuate.

I don't think that schools, or their curriculum, can be blamed for fear or unhappiness. Learning can be difficult, but the curriculum itself was never devised to be a recipe for unhappiness.

In fact, I'd even suggest an alternate point of view: when you meet adult learners who feel under equipped in terms of education, you often meet people who are unhappy and fearful because they sense a profound lacking in terms of knowledge and capability.

I would teach people that they control their lives, that they should not tie their happiness to material objects or the opinions of others, how to achieve goals, how to live in harmony with yourself and others, how to educate oneself, and so forth.

Material objects such as shelter and food do control lives to a very considerable degree, and these things can make some people quite happy. No, they are not necessarily happiness itself, but they certainly can be a component of it. Would it not be best for a person to decide for him or for herself what makes them happy?

As for achieving goals, you best encourage people to try. However, students must first have goals that they want to achieve. It's not always easy, but hard work can have its own rewards - particularly if someone really wants to do something that is important to them.

 

[Northern Light]

Literature

Very interesting reading through all the ideas posted on this thread.

I quoted the above because I specifically disagree with this. If there is anything that a student should walk away from high school with, it is solid literacy skills. To my mind, that means being able to read and to understand what is being read. It also means being able to write and reason clearly. Comprehension and clear expression are essentials for a democracy and a literate society.

If anything, these qualities should be emphasized in as many ways as possible in order to enable students to learn how to grasp ideas, express concepts for themselves and write about those things clearly.

Concerning the near denunciation of literature here, I find this opinion quite troubling as so many emotions can be expressed through literature. Story-telling is an activity that outdates any other means of mediated expression. It is an essential part of being human. The fact that it has taken so many forms should be something that is explored - if not even celebrated - in schools.

As for written plays, any performance of a play demands that it be read many times over - read closely and read out loud.

By no means should what I typed by viewed as a denunciation of literature!

Nor that I undervalue English in any way.

In respect of my comments on English there were 2 distinct areas of focus.

The first was the comment that it should remain mandatory up to Grade 10, but not beyond.

My reasoning is merely that if you have studied English for 10 years formally (since Grade 1) and have reached anywhere near the prescribed level of knowledge of English, you should already possess fluency, including the ability read, write and comprehend at an adult level.

I am fully aware many people graduating Grade 10 do not reach that level, but that is the fault of other elements in the system (soft grading, a 50% pass) and lack of self-motivation and/or ability. The majority of students whose English has not reached a high level by the end of Grade 10, will not improve to an adequate level with 2 more years of High School English.

Keep in mind though, that with the exception of Phys. Ed/Gym, math and possibly some types of art instruction, English education continues in every course as you must read and comprehend the text, and respond on tests/exams or though essays/reports in written form, on which your English is or should be graded as part of the evaluation process.

I judge by my own experience, granted, I was a bit of a geek, LOL But I went to a school far from home, and in Grade 5, I read the Star everyday on the subway on my way to school; and the G&M on the way home.

Maybe I was a bit early, but surely everyone could manage that by Grade 10!

****

As to Literature or curriculum within English....

I am happy to see students read good novels, written by good authors, as part of building English Comprehension; though in general I do wish they would cut down on non-sense like character motivation and allegory and deep philosophizing about novels, which in the vast majority of cases were not written with nearly 1/2 of the subtext written into them that teachers imagine.

In any event, let's have novels by Nick Horby (High Fidelity) or John Irving (The World According to Garp) and teach those.

For starters they were interesting and amusing reads. Shakespeare was not interesting to an educated mind when it was fresh from the Bard himself, and most certainly the humour is lost both in reading (as opposed to performance) and in the archaic version of English used which no longer has practical application.

Shakespeare wrote the equivalent of harlequin romance for his day, the fact it has lasted is not proof of its brilliance, anymore than the fact our children will be able to episodes of Survivor is proof of the craft involved in its making.

Let Shakespeare be taught, if it must, in drama class where at least it has vague value as pop art.

I'm allowed to say this as someone who makes my way to Stratford, for the festival, whenever I get the chance (though usually to see the non-Shakespeare productions)

I would much rather see a mandatory course in debate/rhetoric/critical thinking beyond Grade 10, which while obviously encompassing English would have a different focus.

 

[Northern Light]

Jobs in school

When I was in highschool, I got out at 2:37PM. That gave me enough time to get to work for 4:00, work 4-6 hours, and have time to get home for homework/sleep. I worked as a waiter. If school got out at 5:30, I wouldn't have enought time to get to work for the dinner rush. I probably wouldn't have been hired, but if I was, there would be no way I could work the hours I needed and would have to forego dinner hour tips for five out of seven days a week. Extending the school day later into the evening would make holding down a job more difficult for students.

Understanding the financial need of some families that teens must work or should work etc. is a challenge understood to me in addressing poverty more broadly.

While I see value in High School age students having non-classroom or real-world experience, I think that would be best achieve by either conventional co-op placement and/or a 'Professional Experience Year' in which students take a year out of classroom school (say after Grade 10) and do placements maybe 2 per semester so they get 4 'real world' work experiences over the course of a year.

What concerns me is, that for most students the School Day is currently 6.5 hours in High School. Homework is currently supposed to be 2.5 daily at that level, not including Independent Study projects or studying for exams.

Together, these make for a 9 hour day on average.

Or a 45-hour week.

I'm not sure that I support that a student, during the school year, ought to be working a material number of hours, above and beyond their schooling.

I appreciate that individual family needs may seem to necessitate this for some. A problem surely in need of a solution. I just don't know that I care the current situation.

Keep in the mind the negative side effects of teens, currently being allowed to work up to 28 hours a week, (before adult. min. wage kicks in) and till 11pm at night on a school night.

A) This floods the workforce with cheap, living at home rent-free labour, which undermines decent wages for the 18 and overs who have left High School but aren't University bound, and need a job that pays the bills.
This type of labour can work for $10.00 per hour, while someone over 18, and we assume living outside the parental home, surely requires $15.00 per hour. However, their wage is suppressed by the current situation.

B) As it stands, a heavy workload and potentially big cheque for a teen living at home rent free, stands to make most students fall behind in their school work and to incentivize them to drop out. I favour allowing work, but limiting it to 16 hours per week ( 4 x 4 hour shifts or the like), this would ensure students have adequate time for their studies.

 

[lordmandeep]

Aren't more Kids living with their Parents longer these days or is that due to many recent immigrants who tend to live with their parents till they get married.



A ton of people who in Brampton finished Grade 12 and did not go to College, so they could join the Chrysler Plant when it first opened.

Now they are paying the price for that choice.


You are right a kid living at home with hardly any cost can accumulate a crap load of money with be paying paid just 10 dollars an hour.

 

[prosperegal]

Good manners, grooming, etc, especially for career-oriented courses. I'm sorry, but seeing kids wearing low-rise pants, short skirts, flip flops and tank tops at job interviews makes HR people cry.

 

[jenny_zhang]

Not surprisingly, probability in general also seems to freak out the graduates of the Ontario high school system.

That's because probability in Ontario high school is a joke, at least when I took it. Half of the subject is spent studying easy things like permutations and combinations over and over and then a slight foray into normal distributions at the end.

There are two strands of conversation here apparently but I think math is the number one weakness of the Ontario curriculum. By looking at the people graduating around me, I can honestly say some of my friends were getting decent marks in math and going onto university programs without having any deep grasp of the concepts. The way it's taught in some of these schools (that I have observed) just presents in a simplistic "copy this method" manner. First year at University of Toronto, many of these friends end up failing and dropping out. While the international students did okay.

And it seems like the math curriculum has changed since I was there, with one of the math course (the difficult one) being chopped off. Where are we headed with this?

 

[Redroom Studios]

I didnt take the time to read this whole thread, so not sure if I am repeating anything that was already said: I would add a required course that teaches why religion is irrational and people that believe it are delusional. How's that for controversial?

 

[lordmandeep]

People who blame all of society ills on religion are being irrational and delusional as well.


I sometimes go to a temple (Sikh) twice in a month. Sit and listen for an hour, have a nice talk with friends and chill out. I am not that religious and I don't care what anyone else does or what they believe in. I just like going there, because its one if the few places where I can escape this world for a few hours and really is there anything wrong with that??


So don't assume one who is spiritual is a crazy illogical religious nut who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago.

Plus I don't see how a world with no religion will solve most of the big problems out there. People are idiots now, and will act like idiots nonetheless.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

People who blame all of society ills on religion are being irrational and delusional as well.

from redroom's post, i don't think he was blaming all of society's ills on religion. religion is irrational and delusional but being irrational and delusional isn't something that is exclusive only to religion.

I sometimes go to a temple (Sikh) twice in a month. Sit and listen for an hour, have a nice talk with friends and chill out. I am not that religious and I don't care what anyone else does or what they believe in. I just like going there, because its one if the few places where I can escape this world for a few hours and really is there anything wrong with that??

to each their own. people should be free to believe what they want as long as those beliefs don't cause detriment to other people and religious people don't get special treatment which isn't afforded to anyone else.

So don't assume one who is spiritual is a crazy illogical religious nut who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago.

illogical, yes. but like i said before, being illogical or irrational isn't something that's exclusive only to religion.

Plus I don't see how a world with no religion will solve most of the big problems out there. People are idiots now, and will act like idiots nonetheless.

religion came from people. before there was religion, there wasn't any (obviously). a world without religion might solve alot of problems but those problems would quickly come back in other forms because unless the predisposing factors to religious belief were rid of or reduced to a healthy level, everything would be the same minus the magic. but let me add, some factors and mechanisms that predispose us to religious belief might be beneficial in other aspects of our lives depending on the situation. it is a delicate balancing game. analogy: a gene may predispose you to sickle cell anemia but it will also make you immune to malaria. whether the gene is beneficial or not depends if you're in an environment with alot of malaria carrying mosquitoes.


IMO, better brains would solve alot of the world's problems.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

since were talking about curriculum:

Students must learn about other religions: judge

Parents say new course threatens Christian faith

Graeme Hamilton, National Post

MONTREAL -- Christian parents who objected to their children being taught about other religions in a mandatory new Quebec school course have suffered a serious setback with a ruling this week that the teachings do not infringe their religious freedoms.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Guy Dubois dismissed a bid by parents in Drummondville, Que., who said the course on ethics and religious culture introduced across the province last year was undermining their efforts to instill Christian faith in their children.

"In light of all the evidence presented, the court does not see how the ... course limits the plaintiff's freedom of conscience and of religion for the children when it provides an overall presentation of various religions without obliging the children to adhere to them," Judge Dubois wrote.

The course was controversial even before instruction began last September. During the year there were protest marches in some cities, and about 1,700 parents asked that their children be exempted from attending the class. All such requests were refused.

The course's introduction was the final step in the secularization of Quebec schooling that began with a 1997 constitutional amendment replacing denominational school boards with linguistic ones.

As of last year, parents no longer had the right to choose between courses in Catholic, Protestant or moral instruction. The new curriculum covers a broad range of world religions, with particular emphasis on Quebec's religious heritage -- Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and aboriginal spirituality. It is taught from Grade 1 through Grade 11.

The course's scope was too broad for the parents in the Drummondville case, who cannot be named because their two minor children are involved. During the trial, the children's mother testified that she did not see why her 7-year-old son needs to learn about Islam when he is still forming his own Catholic spirituality. "It's very confusing," she said.

In his ruling, Judge Dubois cited a Catholic theologian who testified that religious instruction is primarily the responsibility of parents, not schools. He added that there is a commitment on the part of the Catholic church to understand other religions.

The Quebec government, which intervened in the case in support of the Des Chênes school board, argued that the course was objective and in no way limited parents' ability to pass their religious beliefs on to their children. Teaching children about other religions is a way to promote "equality, respect and tolerance in the Quebec school system," it said.

Sébastien Lebel-Grenier, a law professor at Université de Sherbrooke, said he is not surprised that the new course survived a challenge under the Charter of Rights.

"What parents were demanding was the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions," he said. "This right to ignorance is certainly not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe."

He said the course is aimed not at instilling religious values but at trying "to explain to these children the diversity in which we now live in Quebec."

Richard Décarie, spokesman for a coalition opposed to the course, said the decision is a major disappointment. He believes there are grounds for an appeal, but he is not sure the parents involved can afford additional legal expenses. He said they have already spent close to $100,000 fighting the case.

"The course shouldn't be compulsory, because it changes completely how parents keep their moral authority over the education of their children," said Mr. Décarie, of the Coalition for Freedom in Education. "We're not talking about mathematics or French or English here. We're talking about something that involves the essence of the culture of people."

Two other challenges of the course are before the courts, with decisions expected this fall. Parents in Granby went to court after their children were suspended from school for failing to attend ethics and religious culture class. Montreal's Loyola High School, a private Jesuit school, has challenged the course, arguing that it obliges the school to put all religions on equal footing. The school says it already teaches world religions to its students.


source: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1956333

 

[lordmandeep]

History has shown us that we would easily kill each other over ethnic and political issues as well not only religious ones.

 

[afransen]

Another problem with religion is the common belief in the US that the world will end within their lifetime tends to lead to some interesting public policy decisions. Like, who needs to worry about GHG, nuclear waste, debt or overpopulation if the rapture is only 15 years away.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

History has shown us that we would easily kill each other over ethnic and political issues as well not only religious ones.

true. but the existence of one bad thing doesn't justify another's acceptance. politics, racism & religion working in unison is a recipe for disaster. personally, i don't think we should ignore the dangers of one thing just because out there exists things of equal or greater danger.

 

[lordmandeep]

However many people think World War 3 will come, or 2012 will be the end or a great natural disaster will destroy the world. I think a survey came out showing 40% of young people think World War 3 is coming.

who knows Tomorrow a great giant supervolanco can blow up and cause the next ice age killing most of us.

Not caring about problems that you do think will not effect you is just human nature.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Another problem with religion is the common belief in the US that the world will end within their lifetime tends to lead to some interesting public policy decisions. Like, who needs to worry about GHG, nuclear waste, debt or overpopulation if the rapture is only 15 years away.

15 years? so there's hope right? in 15 years, they'll see that they were wrong and change their positions right? probably not. they'll come to the conclusion that there was a miscalculation in the rapture forecasting process (somebody forgot to carry the 1 or something) and push the date another 15 years into the future. and this process will continue on and on.