Teachers know what fits in a curriculum
Editor: I am disappointed with the guest columnist who identified the attacks on K-6 curriculum as “partisan”!
The writer claims that the critics were largely connected with the NDP government; then he goes on to say that they and the ATA were “locked out of the curriculum development process” thus they were “expected to say the grapes were sour.”
My recollection is that many of the “critics” were from all across the spectrum. I also remember that the UCP garnered votes from across the spectrum, as well. After all, the majority of voters chose them, didn’t they? Surely some of them are part of that group of attackers!
If we are looking at partisanship, is not the writer of the article displaying a semblance of partisanship? Is there is something about a pot and a kettle in this conversation then? Hmmm?
He does make a good point about a skilled-based and a knowledge-based curriculum, however.
My questions are these, “What does a Grade 1 student need to know about Charlemagne?” “Shouldn’t the early grades ensure that the children learn to work together, tolerate differences, and learn the basic skills of reading, writing, spelling, speaking and thinking?
Rote memorization may not be very popular, but learning the correct words and their spelling is a necessity from my standpoint.
For example, there is a difference in the spelling of the past and present tenses of verbs. Using the verb meaning “to be in front of”, the present tense is spelled “l-ea-d”; the past tense is spelled “led.”
Obviously, the writer of the column had not learned that in his school years (or was that a typo by the Herald editor? See the first sentence in the sixth paragraph).
Teachers are probably better fit to know how to teach what belongs in a curriculum than are non-teachers. Parents and others have a right to identify the things children should know. Unfortunately, members of these groups were not included in the composition of the curriculum development committee.
E.E. Balay
Lethbridge