Dear Editor:
Without any doubt, the first and foremost concern regarding the opening of our educational institutions must be the health and safety of all students. That has been the solitary theme in the world of the media since the reopening was first announced, and so it should be.
Just what do we expect from this institution? Is it merely a setting for social interaction for children and their friends? Is it simply an alternative to the boredom brought on by X-Box or Playstation? Is it a place where parents can pack off the kids so they can get on with their own workday lives?
Or is it a place for actual learning; learning basic attitudes, skills, and background knowledge required in their own future lives?
With the latter in mind, a simple question arises for the September teacher: where to begin? The closure of schools in March wiped out a significant part of the previous year’s skill requirements.
Lest we forget, prior to that, the students and parents had to endure withdrawal of services, rotating strikes, incomplete reporting of progress, work-to-rule campaigns, etc. To say last year’s academic learning was a write-off is a vast understatement. Nevertheless, onward and upward!
Which brings us to now; again to re-iterate the question, where does the September learning begin?
We are basically asking students with a Grade 7 skill base to dial into concepts and skills in Grade 9. We are asking those with a Grade 11 knowledge base to begin college and university courses. The same scenario plays out for every grade level. Does the classroom teacher start where his/her course outline dictates? How can that even be possible given the following examples?
How can we expect a Grade 9 French language teacher to carry on without Grade 8 vocabulary being taught? How can we expect a history teacher to teach 20th century events with no knowledge base from the previous century? How can we expect a child to understand Euclidean geometry without first understanding characteristics of basic geometric shapes?
One answer is fairly simple: standardized tests for assessment and placement followed by learning modules, and individualized progress. Perhaps the age of placement based on age, and an education system based originally on the seasonal needs of the farming community are over. Perhaps the role of the classroom teacher must be altered to reflect a new reality.
Current EQAO standardized tests (Grade 3, 6 and 9) highlight shortcomings in today’s education system. Maybe these should be addressed before suggesting more radical solutions to education, but with less than a week, where do we begin?
Ron Johnson,
Mount Forest