How would you change Ontario's high school curriculum?

[whatever]

Ohh, and using education to promote social goals isn't a good idea. Specifically, requiring students to learn Canadian history or Canadian politics or some such course is a bad idea.

Bollocks. There is absolutely no such thing as a neutral education, and whatever you choose to put into the curriculum is going to have some sort of sociopolitical theme to it or another. Given that, it makes more sense to use education to promote broad, general social goals that we as a society can agree upon (toleration, justice, respect, personal autonomy, individual responsibility, etc) rather than attempting to ignore the elephant in the room and ultimately teaching the wrong social goals.

And what's wrong with Canadian history and Canadian politics? This is our society, and it's only right that we should inform young people as to the bases for our present issues. There are some fascinating and complex issues at play in our history which have shaped Canada into the nuanced nation that it is today, and if you've found Canadian history dull it may be due to a deficiency in your instruction, not in the topic

 

[afransen]

For instance, most Canadian don't seem to have any understanding of the grievances of the Quebecois, and assume that all the politics surrounding that are about getting more money.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are plenty of parts of our history that could be better taught. How about talking about the armed insurrection that was the Riel rebellion? Few Canadians realize that this country has fought insurgencies and terrorism (Fenians, FLQ, Air India bombing) inside its borders. There are also some 'sexy' parts of our history. How about the Canadian diplomats who helped the Americans escape from Iran? Or the Soviet defector in Ottawa?

 

[kEiThZ]

The main point I was trying to raise was that kids can learn more. 4 classes a day is ridiculous. I am sure everybody here can remember how often you got time to work in class at the end because there was extra time. Cutting each class down from 72 mins to 60 mins is entirely feasible. I'd just like to see those added minutes go towards providing a well balanced education with the addition of a 5th class. I realize that it might take additional resources to hire more teachers.

I'd also like to see kids being rewarded for their after-school activities. For example, if you are an active athlete, perhaps you shouldn be awarded the gym credit and be given a spare. And no high school music class can compare to a kid who loves a musical instrument and will practice for hours on their own. For situations like this, I'd like to see schools offer some kind of basic seminar (1 or 2 classes a week for example) to meet the requirements of the credit (say health classes for athletes and music theory for musicians) so that they can be rewarded with some well earned time off (through a spare period for the rest of the week).

Also, the creation of that last year as a prep year for post-secondary or for work also for some real options. I've outlined the plan for post-secondary students with full year courses. For those who are work bound I'd love to see some real partnerships. For example, maybe school boards could tie up with the trades to teach students a trade. Imagine a student graduating from high school ready to work as a carpenter, plumber or industrial electrician from the first day after graduation.

 

[Northern Light]

Great Thread

Great Thread, sorry I'm so late getting to it, it was well hidden, I swear!

So before I start droning on with my thoughts.....background, biases..... I graduated public High School and University, but also attended a private school for 5 years, I'm also a compulsive learner.

That said:

Reforming Education is desirable, as the Canadian system produces 'good' but not great results when compared to the best global peers.

It does many things well, but could do most better.

However, you can never teach everything or even everything that most would agree should be taught.

That leaves the start of this discussion (in my mind) about how much classroom time should there be?

School years can range to as high as 220 academic days in some countries, but most of Europe is between 200-210. Ontario is nominally 194 - 4 PD days for a net total of 190. Most U.S. States average around 180.

I would argue that we should be at around 200 school days net of PD Days.

That provides additional instructional time.

I also favour a longer school day once you hit High School. It should basically result in no homework, but an 8-hour school day. I would argue 9:30am - 5:30pm as this refects the actual biological need of teens to stay up a bit later and get a up a bit later, and keeps them out of mischief until they're hungry for dinner!

That done, I also want to reorganize the school year, as the 11-week summer break results in the need for excessive review time in the fall, up to 4 weeks in some courses, essentially wasted.

I think the year should be 4 terms, of 10 weeks each, followed a by a 2 week break, one in fall, one in winter, one in spring; and then the leftover time could be tacked onto to summer, providing a 5-6 week break.

This would result in a reduction of 1-2 weeks of review every fall.

********

Now onto what's studied.

I want to add lots of things, but first we need to make some room:

I would chop all mandatory English after grade 10. I appreciate that many students graduate w/o adequate English as it is, but I think basic, reading, writing, comprehension, spelling and elocution can and should be mastered by Grade 10 at the latest.

On the other hand I see no value in mandating the study of Shakespeare or Haiku, which aside from lacking practical value; also inflict some of the least interesting writing available on students, and worse, we try to have them READ plays that are meant to be performed, as pop-art, not analyzed and dissected as great philosophical prose!

Leave Shakespeare, if you must, to the drama class, and poetry to a Writer's Craft course (electives), and free up space for other disciplines.

****

Now that we've got some Academic real estate free......

I'm wholly in agreement that at least 1 full year course should provide 'Basic Life Skills'.

Ideally these are skills that would be passed on by parents, but often aren't (sigh); so the school system must, in the interest of society assure a minimal skill set.

The following would be included: Basic Cooking (or how to boil water); then basic personal finance (credit card interest, how to pay bills, personal savings, bank fees etc.); then how to get a job (resumes, employment applications, job searches, interview skills); then basic home maintenance (or how to change a light bulb); finally basic cleaning (laundry etc.)

After that, I'd like to see a mandatory course in logic/rhetoric/debating/reasoning. This would incorporate elements of media studies (why the media almost always has a bias, and why even the truth, from anyone, is invariably incomplete) and then how to deduce and analyze an argument; then how to compose one. Teaching thinking is important!

To the extent there is space, I'd like to see French reorganized, if its going to be retained, then we ought to teach it with the assumption that goal is functional bilingualism, not vaguely remembering how to count to 10! I think 1 hour per day from Grade 1, ending in Grade 10 as a mandatory course, just like English.

Other Reforms:

End any form of streaming within courses. (in other words, no advanced levels then remedial levels and so on).

Allowing for variation in abilities and career goals is legit, but saying someone has Grade 10 English (when if its remedial, maybe, charitably, we mean they have Grade 7 English) is just misleading.

Instead, we should allow prodigal students who excel in subjects to essentially take exams or advanced placement tests and have them 'skip' a level every so often.

For mandatory subjects, student who are in difficulty should be given the extra help they need to pass, but no dumbing down the curriculum.

Differences in student abilities and desires would largely be accommodated though elective shaping. ie. University bound students would take credits required by their school of choice, while trade-bound students would take courses suited to that and so on.

***

Next, we need to raise the passing grade. Fifty percent is not an acceptable grade for awarding a credit. Although a classic extreme example, do you want the surgeon operating on you to have gotten 49% of the answers wrong on the test?

By that same logic, it is wholly unreasonable to suggest a grasp of math or English if your grade is 50%.

I'm not sure what the magic number should be, but not less than 60%, of that I am certain!

***

There, now we've perfected Education in Ontario!

(well, that's my short-list)

 

[afransen]

The problem with 'skipping' grades is that students still need to learn the material, if not at a snails pace. Just because a student is gifted with math doesn't mean they can skip trigonometry or calculus. So forcing these students to work at the pace of the dumbest student in class or not getting the education at all is a disservice.

 

[Whoaccio]

In Ontario schools, money isn't everything

Good schools aren't necessarily in good neighbourhoods, according to a new study.

Standardized test scores for Ontario elementary school students in similar socioeconomic neighbourhoods vary by as much as 20 per cent above or below the provincial average, the study by a Waterloo, Ont., professor suggests, raising questions about why schools in similar communities achieve such different results.

The study is being released months after the province, facing an outcry from educators, scrapped a searchable school database that included information such as socioeconomic backgrounds and test scores.

The study, titled Ontario's Best Public Schools, was compiled by Wilfrid Laurier University economics professor David Johnson and released Tuesday by the C.D. Howe Institute. It looks at standardized Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) testing of Grade 3 and Grade 6 students over the past three years in schools where at least 45 students are tested, adjusting them according to socioeconomic variables such as pupils' household income.

Knowing those socioeconomic factors allowed Prof. Johnson to compare EQAO results of similar schools – for instance, those in well-to-do neighbourhoods.

The results prove that money isn't the only factor in student success. Results vary significantly in schools with similar students and communities, Prof. Johnson said.

“It could have been that every school in the province would be on the upward line [suggesting that more money brings better test results],†he said. “It's not.â€

For example, test results from a group of schools that Prof. Johnson expected to do 5 per cent better than the provincial average based on socioeconomic factors, fell in a range of 20 per cent above or below the provincial average.

“The message here is there are variations in the quality of instruction across schools where students come from similar economic and social backgrounds, and we care about that variation,†Prof. Johnson said. “If we get variations in outcome – big variations in outcome – from the same resources, we should be asking why.â€

The province's top two schools are Toronto's St. Michael's Choir and St. John Vianney Separate School in Barrie, according to the study.

The study is based on EQAO numbers, which some, including the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, say aren't a fair measure because they “don't assess the whole child or the whole curriculum,†according to the union's website.

The Toronto District School Board, meanwhile, runs its own index, which ranks schools by community need, but doesn't compare them with the provincial testing results. Prof. Johnson said that amounts to determining need without considering results.

But TDSB chair John Campbell said the board won't change its approach because of the new study. “There's value in it [the study]. But do we spend a lot time agonizing about it? No.â€

Prof. Johnson did similar studies in 2005 and 2007, but this year's study was the first to incorporate more complex socioeconomic data. For instance, he weighed factors such as a parent's education more heavily for the Grade 6 test than those in Grade 3.

Annie Kidder, founder of the advocacy group People for Education, is among those pushing for a revision of testing methodology, and believes studies miss the mark when relying on standardized data.

“They're always interesting, these things,†she said. “This study may have lots of wonderful data and may be carefully done … but I would argue, no, you cannot judge a school on this [standardized testing] basis.â€

Inequality does not doom schools

When poor schools exceed expectations, when schools in affluent areas do not rise above mediocrity, the public has a right to know – and to learn why. Modern, provincewide testing of the reading, writing and math skills of elementary school students is about 15 years old in Canada, but the public knows little about how schools with similar socio-economic environments rank against one another.

Rankings should not be a dirty word. While at least half of the difference between any two schools can be explained by the affluence, or its lack, among the parents, the other 40 to 50 per cent is up to the school to influence, according to a series of studies in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta done for the C.D. Howe Institute, by David Johnson, an economist at Wilfrid Laurier University. Shouldn't people know, then, which schools are exceeding expectations, and which are failing to meet them? Such transparent comparisons, or rankings, would help raise expectations. Why expect the average? Why not expect the very good?

Individual schools matter more than some might think. That is the vital message of Prof. Johnson's studies. It means there is no excuse for defeatism in schools that serve the children of the poor. Even in more affluent areas, student success should not be taken for granted. And when schools do something right, especially in low-income areas, educators should rush to find out why.

Prof. Johnson has obtained data from Ontario's public-school testing authority that show, for each school, the percentage in the local community of university graduates, recent immigrants, single mothers, aboriginals, people living in detached homes, and so on. This information should be made readily available on provincial and school-board websites, where the data exist. The government agencies responsible for the schools should share what they know with the rest of us.

At Cornell Junior Public School in Toronto, where just 21.5 per cent of people in the community have a university degree, and the average household income is under $50,000 a year, 80 per cent of the Grade 3 pupils passed the Grade 3 tests over the past three years. That school has plenty to teach the country. “There's a culture there of ‘how do we do things better than we currently are?'†says Don McLean, a Toronto District School Board superintendent with responsibility for Cornell.

Constant monitoring of progress is crucial, educators find. But if that is so, then the more data and transparency the better. Yet there are still many voices, from a teachers union in British Columbia to parent groups and school boards in Southern Ontario, that resent the tests themselves, let alone the rankings that can and should be made from them. “Rankings are one slice, and schools are far more complex than one slice,†said one senior official in York Region, north of Toronto. Fair enough. But how dare school officials hide that one slice, as if parents could not be trusted with the information?

The public should break down the doors of the public school system to find out which schools are succeeding, and which are not, and why.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

The problem with 'skipping' grades is that students still need to learn the material, if not at a snails pace. Just because a student is gifted with math doesn't mean they can skip trigonometry or calculus. So forcing these students to work at the pace of the dumbest student in class or not getting the education at all is a disservice.

It probably won't be taught at the slowest pace anyway -- more likely some "average" pace which will be too fast for some and too slow for others. And if
you can't engage them, they'll just get bored and disturb those who are actually trying to learn.

Skipping grades is also awkward socially. Maybe less so in high school, but just one or two years either way in elementary school covers some big developmental differences. A 9-year-old might be able to handle Grade 6 math, but likely not Grade 6 classroom intrigue.

 

[gristle]

For instance, most Canadian don't seem to have any understanding of the grievances of the Quebecois, and assume that all the politics surrounding that are about getting more money.

The thing is, this statement is not particularly clear or helpful (no insult intended). Do Quebecois have a valid grievance, or is that "grievance" one of history? In other words, is their anything so wrong for the Quebec people today that demands the independence of the province? Or is this sentiment a product of a set of beliefs concerning specific aspects of Quebec history?

As a colony under French rule, Quebec was not a democracy. That form of government evolved under the British. The "grievances" suggested actually emanate, in part, from that type of change and the idea of democratic self-government. That quality never too hold during French rule. Add to that, Quebecois culture and religious beliefs were not wiped out under the British, and there were certainly no overt curtailments of of an evolving Quebec culture during the Quiet Revolution. Were there strong prejudices held against Quebeckers by some non-francophone Canadians? Most certainly - just as there were prejudices held by some francophone Quebeckers against non-Quebecois during the growth of the contemporary separatist movement.

Feel good history - whether promoted in popular culture or in school - usually does nothing good for the study history (except in making it). If anything, such promotional history can be manipulated into a weapon of belief about "facts" that don't really exist.

 

[gristle]

I would chop all mandatory English after grade 10. I appreciate that many students graduate w/o adequate English as it is, but I think basic, reading, writing, comprehension, spelling and elocution can and should be mastered by Grade 10 at the latest.

On the other hand I see no value in mandating the study of Shakespeare or Haiku, which aside from lacking practical value; also inflict some of the least interesting writing available on students, and worse, we try to have them READ plays that are meant to be performed, as pop-art, not analyzed and dissected as great philosophical prose!

Leave Shakespeare, if you must, to the drama class, and poetry to a Writer's Craft course (electives), and free up space for other disciplines.

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.

 

[toraerach]

I also favour a longer school day once you hit High School. It should basically result in no homework, but an 8-hour school day. I would argue 9:30am - 5:30pm as this refects the actual biological need of teens to stay up a bit later and get a up a bit later, and keeps them out of mischief until they're hungry for dinner!

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.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

The math curriculum needs to be boosted up. Sciences are okay, but students are getting by without building up their core skills in algebra or trigonometry. That's why a lot of students go to university math courses and start failing. I don't know how seriously math is actually treated in school for this reason.

I was teaching the application of statistics to research design at one of the city's hallowed universities recently and was shocked to find that 65% of the second year class was either 'not sure' or thought that '.07 was less than .05'. It is depressing to draw a numberline for a class of 20+ year olds. Not surprisingly, probability in general also seems to freak out the graduates of the Ontario high school system.

Also math should stop being necessary past grade 10. No one who isn't going into a math related field needs to know about trigonometric identities or what have you. Leave the upper level classes for those who are focused 100% on it.

The problem with this plan is that mathematical skills come up in unexpected places. Grade 10 kids don't realise (and can't predict) what they will need on the future. For example, most social science degrees require students to complete courses in basic statistics, which they don't realise when they start. Students in my neuroscience lab require some trig. which probably wouldn't be guessed in advance etc. etc.

It reminds me of a story my friend told me. When she was an undergraduate, due to the usual restrictions in the degree program/timetabling etc., she ended up having to choose between a course in "basic book-keeping and accounting" and "introduction to latin". Seeking advice from her father (who was paying her tuition) she was told that latin was a dead language and book-keeping would always be useful. This seemed like great advice and she took it - but she turned out to be a historical geographer specializing in medieval settlements when she "grew-up" and spends all her time reading semi-legible documents in LATIN I am not sure any of our fields of knowledge will necessarily cooperate with the notion that they are not necessary after Grade 10.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

There are many interesting points about specific subjects, course content etc. etc.
It does seem to me though that there is also a more general issue with Ontario high school graduates that I genuinely don't remember seeing in 1st year university students in my experience in the UK and the USA.
(1) A deadline is a guideline - work is never handed in before the due date, but apparently any date afterwards is fine. (I had a student bring me an assignment to grade for a course that had ended several YEARS previously. The student was applying to grad. school and had decided that they did need a decent grade in my class after all.) WTF
(2) If anything at all is submitted as an assignment it automatically should get a passing grade - after all it is the thought (rather than the content) that counts, right? (All hell breaks lose if the instructor writes a comment which isn't gushingly positive on a paper.)
(3) The instructor was obviously joking when she said that the work had to be something done individually and exclusively by the student who submits it - everyone knows that the answer to any assignment is somewhere on the internet and it is just a case of goggling to find it and pasting it in. If goggle fails (e.g. the instructor demonstrates that they too know the URL for this natty piece of technology) there is always the essay mills - who of course write original, A+ essays for $50! (NOT! - Actually they just don't realise that the instructor can use goggle.)
(4) If you don't get around to studying during the course that is fine because you can just write to the course instructor at the end of term with the following or similar "The political situation in <fill in a country> impacted my ability to study at the beginning of term. I am planning on majoring in <fill in the subject that requires a C in the course> so I need a C, not an D. Thank you in advance for your help. The deadline for the C requirement is today." Expect a C by immediate return.

If I saw this one or twice I would put it down to a lack of moral fibre or similar in individual students. However, it seems to be pretty endemic amongst the first years and tends to continue. Unfortunately, I am not a product of the Ontario High School system and therefore have some different expectations - and therefore no hot chilis on ratemyprofessor.com. (Plagiarism is a universal problem, and getting worse, but it is specifically the attitude here when I catch them that grieves me.) I assume that they get away with tardy work etc. in high school.

 

[golodhendil]

Some good suggestions here, but also some that seem rather.. dated. Eg, WK Lis's suggestion about keyboarding - I had that in elementary school already. Granted that was in BC, but I certainly had that, and more advanced computer education, in middle school in Ontario as well.

Some other suggestions seem to stem from different systems that different schools follow, and more importantly, inconsistencies in how well things are taught. For example,

There are plenty of parts of our history that could be better taught. How about talking about the armed insurrection that was the Riel rebellion? Few Canadians realize that this country has fought insurgencies and terrorism (Fenians, FLQ, Air India bombing) inside its borders. There are also some 'sexy' parts of our history. How about the Canadian diplomats who helped the Americans escape from Iran? Or the Soviet defector in Ottawa?

For me at least, Riel and Fenians were taught in middle school, and Air India bombing and especially FLQ and the Quebec problem were pretty thoroughly covered in Gr.10. How much students retain and how effectively these are tested in evaluations is a whole another matter, but again, it's more to do with consistency of the execution rather than the curriculum itself. Somewhere else you also mentioned a semester course being not enough as university prep - my high school runs full-year courses and does not follow the semester system, and while I would imagine the number of course hours should work out to be roughly the same, they are full year courses nonetheless. Though for sure, the Gr.11/12 math curriculum definitely needs to be improved.

As for this, not commenting on the structural changes to the education system but just the curriculum:

Great Thread, sorry I'm so late getting to it, it was well hidden, I swear!


********

Now onto what's studied.

I want to add lots of things, but first we need to make some room:

I would chop all mandatory English after grade 10. I appreciate that many students graduate w/o adequate English as it is, but I think basic, reading, writing, comprehension, spelling and elocution can and should be mastered by Grade 10 at the latest.

On the other hand I see no value in mandating the study of Shakespeare or Haiku, which aside from lacking practical value; also inflict some of the least interesting writing available on students, and worse, we try to have them READ plays that are meant to be performed, as pop-art, not analyzed and dissected as great philosophical prose!

Leave Shakespeare, if you must, to the drama class, and poetry to a Writer's Craft course (electives), and free up space for other disciplines.

While English was the class that I personally disliked the most / cared the least about, I am with others in being firmly against removing it as a compulsory course.

Now that we've got some Academic real estate free......

I'm wholly in agreement that at least 1 full year course should provide 'Basic Life Skills'.

Ideally these are skills that would be passed on by parents, but often aren't (sigh); so the school system must, in the interest of society assure a minimal skill set.

The following would be included: Basic Cooking (or how to boil water); then basic personal finance (credit card interest, how to pay bills, personal savings, bank fees etc.); then how to get a job (resumes, employment applications, job searches, interview skills); then basic home maintenance (or how to change a light bulb); finally basic cleaning (laundry etc.)

Finances is an important thing to teach, but basic ideas like interest rates, mortgages etc are already taught in math. Other than that, everything else you have or have not listed (job skills, cooking, "family studies" stuff like sewing etc) are covered in middle school by courses that were mandatory at least for my school, so I don't see a reason to institute a "Life Skills" course in high school for them. The same actually also applies to various things suggested by other posters earlier - things like trades (woodwork, electronics) and health studies (nutrition, sex ed) were covered multiple times in compulsory courses in middle school and in Gr.9 phys ed. Not taught enough? Perhaps, but I personally feel high school is not the place to re-teach them unless that is the "stream" chosen by the students, so to speak.

After that, I'd like to see a mandatory course in logic/rhetoric/debating/reasoning. This would incorporate elements of media studies (why the media almost always has a bias, and why even the truth, from anyone, is invariably incomplete) and then how to deduce and analyze an argument; then how to compose one. Teaching thinking is important!

This is actually a good suggestion, something like the TOK (Theory of Knowledge) course in the IB program.

 

[Johnny Crash]

I think the topic of this thread is a very good question, but one, given the complexity of education, takes a lot of thought to answer. I think it would take years to determine how to best reform the educational system.

Still, unqualified as I may be, I'll provide a brief opinion.

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.

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

I can see the points of those who argue for specific things being taught, or taught in greater detail. I only skimmed this thread, but I did see a number of things that are indeed very important to learn - geography, finance, diet and nutrition, and to learn more about Quebec. I must confess I'm one of the many Canadians who knows next to nothing about Quebec's grievances.

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.

And even more important than that, I feel, is to teach people to be happy.

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.

In order to become a happier, healthy society, we need to adopt a new perspective.

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.