Education is larger than curriculum
Teachers are expected to use their skills to create lessons based on curriculum models that grant them discretion
Updating curriculum regularly is a priority in education and many curriculum documents are updated with little to no controversy. The Health and Physical Education Curriculum, however, has become a lightening rod for controversy with all sides exaggerating what it can and cannot do.
The continuing debate around updating the Health and Physical Education Curriculum dates back to 2010 (when then premier Dalton McGuinty backed down on changes to the 1998 document). Kathleen Wynne had just moved to the Transportation Ministry after having served as the Minister of Education who oversaw the changes. She was premier in 2015 when the updates were reintroduced to protests.
The current round of protests was triggered when the Ford government announced the roll back to the 1998 document on its first day in power.
While school boards wait for clarification, from government and lawyers, about what the latest roll back will mean in practice, all sides should note that curriculum is not a lesson plan, curriculum documents are not the only things that govern education and individual teachers have a lot of responsibility.
Teachers are expected to use their professional knowledge to create lesson plans based on curriculum expectations that are usually pretty broad and grant them discretion. Consider the Grade 1 expectation about terminology. The 1998 expectation is “identify the major parts of the body by their proper names.” It does not preclude teachers from including genitalia.
The 2015 version is, “identify body parts, including genitalia (e.g., penis, testicles, vagina, vulva), using correct terminology.” However, the document clearly states, “The examples and prompts do not set out requirements for student learning; they are optional, not mandatory.” Individual teachers decide what is appropriate for their own classes.
Secondly, there are other curriculum documents that have not been subjected to similar controversy despite broaching similar topics.
The Science and Technology document has a Grade 1 expectation that reads, “identify the location and function of major parts of the human body, including sense organs.” Suggestions follow but there are no exclusions stated.
A Grade 2 social studies expectation is to “identify and describe different types of families (e.g., families with one parent, two parents, no children; same-sex families; blended and multigenerational families; immigrant families; families where the parents come from different religious or ethnocultural groups).” Individual classes may discuss very different combinations of family types.
All sides would do well to remember that these issues are not limited to curriculum documents.
The Education Act specifically states that school boards shall “promote student achievement and well-being.” This includes promoting, “a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils, including pupils of any race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability” and “the prevention of bullying.”
Ontario designates Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week each November to support these goals. Many schools present schoolwide programs that address physical, verbal, social and electronic (a.k.a. cyberbullying) bullying.
The Ontario College of Teachers requires members to “… understand and reflect on student development, learning theory, pedagogy, curriculum, ethics, educational research and related policies and legislation to inform professional judgment in practice.” This is true no matter what curriculum is in place this September.
Catherine Little is a Toronto-based educator, consultant and writer. She was a lead writer in the 2007 science and technology curriculum revision.