There's an elegant solution to curriculum arguments

Public scrutiny ensures extremist ideas don't find their way into the classroom

There's no shortage of rage and upset in the partisan debate over what our children should be taught in school, but that's a good thing.

The uproar signals that our system is grinding forward. Given this high level of public input and scrutiny, parents can be assured that no extremist ideas will find their way into the final curriculum.

There's no better disinfectant than sunshine, which is why I have long advocated that the names of lead curriculum writers be made public. Former premier Rachel Notley refused to do so. Her government kept them secret, which made it difficult to scrutinize their ideas and biases.

In the case of Premier Jason Kenney's new K-12 curriculum writing process, the United Conservatives made public the names. This has allowed for ongoing critiques, including scathing criticism of historian C.P. Champion, Kenney's lead for the social studies curriculum.

Champion's recommendations for a new K-12 social studies curriculum were leaked this week to the CBC.

To be fair to Champion, he puts forward many thoughtful ideas. For example, here's one for a Grade 2 teaching unit on Parliament in Ottawa: “Students do not have to understand fully what

Parliament is, just the concept that people meet there to `argue peacefully' about what should be done. Instead of fighting about things and hurting people, we disagree peacefully in Parliament.”

But some of Champion's ideas are also being characterized as foul and wrong-headed.

Such scrutiny is uncomfortable for any academic but it safeguards this public process — and there are other protections as well. As did the NDP, the UCP government will release draft outlines of the new curriculum.

Finally, there's an elegant compromise that can be reached in this matter. I'll detail that compromise in a moment, but let's first dig into the critique of Champion.

Leading the charge is University of Alberta education professor Carla Peck, a driving force of Notley's social studies curriculum writing team.

In a new blog post, Peck lambastes Champion's writings: “I've done a deep dive into the social studies curriculum revisions authored by Chris Champion and it is not an overstatement to say that the recommendations are disastrous. More than that, they are repulsive, regressive, and grounded in racist ideology that positions white, western, Christian knowledge as superior to any other knowledge.”

To make her point, Peck gives the example of Champion's preference to teach about residential schools in Grade 9, not in early elementary grades. He writes: “The ugliness of Dickensian schooling, boarding schools,

19th century discipline methods, and residential schooling that applied to some Indigenous kids, can probably best be saved for later when learners are more mature and are less emotionally vulnerable to traumatic material. For example there could be a Grade 9 unit about benign vs. harsh schooling in the past, inclusive of all cultures not only Indigenous, but with regard to the particular problematic of residential schooling even if it applied only to a minority of Indigenous children.”

Peck characterizes Champion as minimizing the horrors of residential schooling here. She makes a convincing point.

Given how central First Nations are to Canada and our collective history, as well as the defining role residential schools played in First Nations history, Champion's notion of lumping in residential schools with other forms of harsh educational practice worldwide comes across as tone deaf at best.

On Thursday in the legislature, Education Minister Adriana Lagrange said the new elementary school curriculum will include residential schools: “Alberta's curriculum will teach the full history of Canada, including First Nations, Métis and Inuit history. This includes residential schools.”

Lagrange's clarification was clear and timely, but it's also evident that many folks won't be satisfied with her assurance, which is a reasonable position.

Some folks will hunger for a different kind of educational approach, one spelled out by Peck in her bio, where she said: “The foundation of my teaching philosophy is my commitment to teach for social justice.”

It's my own conviction that the purpose of education is the pursuit of the truth, not the pursuit of any one version of social justice or any other overt political end.

But the great strength of Alberta's school system is that between our public school programs of choice, charter schools and private schools, we make allowances for all kinds of different educational philosophies.

This brings me to a proposed compromise: Kenney should now make it clear he will offer every support to educators and parents who want to develop a series of new social justice charter schools.

The purpose of education is the pursuit of the truth, not the pursuit of any one version of social justice ...