Margaret McNay, associate professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Road, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7, is interested in issues in curriculum, especially the elementary school science curriculum, and in teacher education and professional development. Her recent papers have appeared in The Canadian School Executive and Canadian Journal of Higher Education.

 JCS invites comments on this paper for publication on the journal's web site. Address comments to Ian Westbury, General editor of JCS, at Westbury@uiuc.edu. All such comments on this paper, and on other papers in the journal, can be accessed at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/jcs/.

‘I’m not interested in politics’, one of my graduate students once said: ‘I just want to teach’. Conservative and neo-conservative trends in governments and education, including the centralization of government control and the ‘marketization of education’ around the world (Dei and Karumanchery 1999), are making the untenability of my graduate student’s position more and more painfully obvious.

The Thatcher government in the UK and the Reagan administration in the USA heralded the current era. In the UK, the 1988 Education Reform Act introduced, among other items, the National Curriculum, and gave focus to an era of policy-making which ‘intrude[s] increasingly upon the professional practice of teachers and teacher trainers’ (McNamara 1993: 277). Variations of ‘the market solution’ abound in English schools (Gewirtz et al. 1995). In the USA, increasing corporate interest in education has resulted in market-driven educational programmes, more and more commercialized curricula, and the deflection of educational agendas away from the best interests of students and teachers (see, for example, Molnar 1996). In Canada, the provincial governments of Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario are the current, pre-eminent manifestations of the Thatcher/Reagan heritage, drawing criticism from various quarters for the controversial and, in some cases, dramatic changes in education they have instituted. Cooke (1997: 21, 22), for example, has denounced the ‘legislative fascism’ of Mr. Harris’s call for ‘a return to the ‘basics’, a controlled curriculum and standardized testing’&endash;‘the fashionable commonplaces of Corporate America’. Taylor (1998) denounces the insertion of ‘employability skills’ into government education policy in Alberta, calling them ‘the corporate "wish list"’. In Australia, competency-based education and training, and a ‘new vocationalism’, are major issues, ‘spawned from the corporate alliance of government, business and unions’ (Sedunary 1996: 369). In that country, too, a set of ‘generic, employment-related ‘key competencies’’ has become a focus for educational reform. In still other parts of the world including Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, ‘fiscally conservative governments have forced many communities to face reforms that effectively undermine public schooling’ (Dei and Karumanchery 1999: 113). Indeed,

A major focus for government intervention in education is the curriculum and, in particular, the ‘improvement’ and standardization of curriculum. The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8 (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training [OMET] 1997) is a case in point. Indeed, the Science and Technology 1998 component of The Ontario Curriculum (OMET 1998) is a brilliant example of how a conservative political agenda can be inserted into classrooms in the name of curriculum reform.

My concern is to sound yet another alarm over yet another example of the political agenda in curriculum&endash;over its implications, its miseducative aspects, the injustices it does to student learning, the increasing control of teachers it accomplishes, and the social inequities it perpetuates. I offer a local view and examination of a single document but, as I have already suggested, the kinds of issues which liberal democratic educators must be concerned about in Science and Technology 1998 go far beyond science education and far beyond Ontario. The ‘marketization’ of education is an international phenomenon.

Science and Technology 1998 was introduced into Ontario’s elementary schools in September 1998 as part of the Conservative government’s wide-ranging programme of education reform. Praised by its advocates for its rigour, Science and Technology 1998 places greater emphasis on concepts and knowledge than do many other elementary school science curricula and, concomitantly, less emphasis on so-called process or inquiry skills; it introduces some topics earlier than other curricula do, and in more depth; and, it provides extensive lists of ‘expectations’. On the other hand, Science and Technology 1998 says little about goals for science education, and nothing at all about the nature of science and scientific inquiry, issues of equity, or pedagogy.

Science and Technology 1998’s greater emphasis on concepts and knowledge is in one sense good: elementary school science throughout North America and the UK has suffered greatly over the last 30 years from an overemphasis on ‘process’. The development in the 1960s and 1970s of a variety of ‘process’ approaches in the USA, and of Nuffield science in the UK heavily influenced almost all later curriculum development in science. Despite profound concerns and early warnings about its integrity and intellectual validity (Harris and Taylor 1983, Millar 1985, Millar and Driver 1987), an emphasis on discovery-oriented, process-based teaching has persisted. As a result, children in many classrooms have spent too much time observing, predicting, experimenting and ostensibly doing science, while never really thinking about what they were doing, never articulating ideas, and never developing any conceptual awareness of either the science or the nature of the inquiry involved. Too often in elementary classrooms, science has been all activity&endash;sometimes highly questionable activity&endash;and little or no content. Science and Technology 1998 attempts to retain but not overdo process skills, making them an integral part of the programme and intending them to be taught not in isolation but in conjunction with significant concepts.

But, despite this attention, process skills will, in practice, very likely get lost, and with them will go any substantial attention to inquiry itself, and to ‘hands-on’ or ‘lab’ activities. Science and Technology 1998’s substantial emphasis on concepts and knowledge will create inordinate concern among teachers for ‘covering’ all that information. And, because concepts and information are easier to test for and evaluate than are inquiry skills, and because province-wide testing at specified grade levels is part of the plan for the new curriculum, teachers will feel obliged to forego time-consuming exploratory activities to ensure ‘coverage’ of prescribed topics. The development of deep conceptual understanding, however, as much as the development of inquiry skills, requires activity. Indeed, Science and Technology 1998’s advanced content means that more time ought to be devoted to activities. But the notion of coverage is seductive, and many teachers will feel forced by Science and Technology 1998 to opt for ‘getting through’ the curriculum rather than for understanding.

The writing of a new science curriculum was an opportunity to consider ideas such as those of Jenkins (1992: 242-243) for a ‘reconstructed . . . science curriculum . . . that is about empowerment as well as understanding’, or Hodson’s (1996: 115) ideas for a ‘re-orientation of laboratory work’ in a more meaningful, authentic direction. Instead, Science and Technology 1998 is essentially a ‘back-to-basics’ curriculum which ignores the lessons of the last 30 years, fails to do justice to either the content of science or the inquiry process, and promises only to promote ‘coverage’.

No other feature of Science and Technology 1998 will likely be as unpopular or have such unfortunate consequences as the curriculum’s earlier introduction and ‘more rigorous’ treatment of certain topics. More rigour in Science and Technology 1998 means the addition at earlier levels of more abstract, more conceptually demanding topics. But no rationale is offered to support the assumption that more demanding content can be taught in a meaningful way to younger students. Anyone who has worked with elementary students knows that expecting grade 1 children to understand in any substantial way that the sun is the earth’s principal source of energy, or grade 7 students to understand that ‘temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance [while] heat is thermal energy that is transferred from one substance to another’ (p. 66) is, to say the least, highly optimistic. Grade 1 children can learn to parrot ‘right’ answers, and grade 7 students to memorize incomprehensible definitions, but no educational advantage is gained when the conceptual demands of what is taught are beyond the comprehension of the students. Science and Technology 1998’s definitions of heat and temperature were particularly derided by one of my colleagues:

Too many students already think science is arcane and irrelevant, and resort to memorizing information they do not understand or care about. For many students, Science and Technology 1998’s increased conceptual difficulty will only make science more threatening, discouraging and alienating.

A statement of purpose sets long-term goals, a direction and a tone for a curriculum, and offers an opportunity to express hopes and ideals. Science and Technology 1998 offers science for the express purposes of developing concepts and skills which students ‘can apply in a wide range of situations’, and which are ‘important . . . in the world of work’ (p. 3). Such utilitarian, essentialist goals are laudable (though remarkably inconsistent with the more traditional, academic, theoretical content that comprises much of Science and Technology 1998), but a science curriculum should offer more. ‘First, and perhaps of greatest importance’, writes Jenkins (1992: 243), ‘[a science curriculum] must present science as one of the supremely imaginative, creative and intellectual human achievements, worthy of study in its own right’. Science involves exploration, adventure, satisfaction of curiosity, and, as one child once said to me, ‘all the wonder things’. A curriculum should do the same&endash;it should inspire and excite those who use it. In a public talk many years ago, David Suzuki (1982) suggested that the best and most important reason for teaching science in school is ‘to enrich the life of the child’. Indeed, many students are interested in topics which are not obviously useful and which do not ‘apply in a wide range of situations’. Surely, the purpose of being a student in elementary school is not primarily to prepare for the world of work. Instead of serving the workplace, a science curriculum might be conceived of in terms of its contribution to intellectual development and richness of life, or, more broadly, in terms of a concern for social and economic justice, democratic citizenship, and the quality of life generally. In any case, applied knowledge and marketable work-skills can be learned even when they are not the direct focus of instruction. One does not have to be either hopelessly romantic or bleeding-heart liberal to believe that if science were taught in ways that ‘enriched the life of the child’ or raised students’ social consciences, preparation for the world of work might more or less take care of itself.

Although in its introductory pages Science and Technology 1998 offers brief definitions of both ‘science’ and ‘technology’, there is no real focus in this curriculum on science as form of inquiry or a way of knowing&endash;on the kinds of questions with which science is concerned, the kind of information that counts for evidence in science, the experimental method, the commitment to tentativeness of findings, and so on. Perhaps no knowledge is more important for an educated, thoughtful and critical citizenry than an understanding of the nature and characteristics of science, and of its strengths and limitations, yet Science and Technology 1998 fails to address them in any way. Also missing from Science and Technology 1998 is the kind of laudable attempt made by its predecessor, The Common Curriculum (OMET 1995), to promote equity and social justice in the science curriculum. The Common Curriculum mandated that ‘implementation of the [curriculum] must be linked to the development and implementation of policies on antiracism and ethnocultural equity’ (p. 4), and that it help all students, ‘especially those from groups currently underrepresented’ (p. 82) in science, to benefit fully from the programme regardless of gender, race, culture, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or ability. As well, The Common Curriculum mandated that students learn about how ‘cultural, professional, and gender-related perspectives’ (p. 83) contribute to different explanations of the world. The absence of concerns about equity in Science and Technology 1998, indeed the absence of almost any mention at all of gender, race, or culture in The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8 (OMET 1997) as a whole ensures that every kind of bias will continue to go unrecognized and unaddressed in many classrooms. Finally, Science and Technology 1998 fails to provide any guidance about pedagogical method; curriculum guides, after all, are widely expected to tell teachers what to teach, not how. The contents of a curriculum, however, and its goals, tone and values, whether implicit or explicit, are strongly associated in teachers’ minds with particular pedagogical practices. The failure of Science and Technology 1998 even to mention the importance of exploratory activities in the development of conceptual understandings, or to point out the importance of identifying and dealing with students’ preconceptions and misconceptions, coupled with Science and Technology 1998’s prescriptive content and emphasis on rigour, virtually ensures a pedagogical approach heavy with text books, ‘chalk-and-talk’, and note-taking, and lacking in first-hand activity, an important part of the successful development of the very knowledge that forms the core of Science and Technology 1998.

Because ‘politically motivated reforms nearly always flow from simplistic analyses and justifications that ignore systemic ramifications’ (Barlow and Robertson 1994: 116), they often do more harm than good. Certainly, Science and Technology 1998 has demonstrated Fullan and Stiegelbauer’s (quoted in Barlow and Robertson 1994: 113) charge that such reforms produce ‘overload, unrealistic time lines, un-coordinated demands, simplistic solutions, misdirected efforts, inconsistencies, and underestimation of what it takes to bring about [change]’. A few teachers will massage and manage the new curriculum, and continue to offer excellent programmes; others, short of resources, overburdened with curriculum changes in other subject areas, minimally trained in science themselves, and discouraged by increasing political control of curriculum, will find the teaching of science even more difficult and dispiriting than before.

Beyond their direct and indirect effects on teachers, politically motivated reforms can have profound systemic effects on the nature and structure of education, and of the society that results. Failure to acknowledge the cultural narrowness of ‘rigorous’ conceptual knowledge, for example, or, on the other hand, to conceive of a subject as anything more than ‘useful’ and applied knowledge, is to limit students’ perceptions of possible roles for that subject in their lives and in society. Failure to examine the nature of different forms of inquiry, attend to equity issues, or consider the ultimate effects of particular pedagogical stances, is to maintain a social status quo. Thus, neither students nor teachers are led to question the hegemony of traditional sunbject-matter knowledge, the justice of current social structures, or the political nature of pedagogy, or to develop a more socially critical view of the world. It ensures that those who have power in society will keep it, and that those who do not will continue to be denied the education that might enable them to make changes. Curriculum critics must, therefore, follow Osborne (1993: 67) and:

Just as the liberal left dominated educational debate in many parts of the world throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, so the corporate right dominates not only educational debate but educational change at the end of the 20th century. Curriculum reform is an important part of governmental attempts to seek political advantage by catering to business interests and playing on parental hopes and fears, and centralize control of all aspects of education including teachers themselves. By prescribing content and outcomes for learning in more detail and more rigidly than ever before, and requiring province-wide testing, a curriculum diminishes teachers’ control over what is taught and:

Internationally, critics call for resistance. From Canada, for example:

From the USA, Molnar (1996: 184), for example, suggests that ‘the real challenge of the next century [in education] is to take control of our lives back from the market’.

No one who claims a serious interest in education can eschew a serious and active engagement with politics. ‘By definition’, wrote Barlow and Robertson (1994: 112), ‘education is political . . . . Education is power; power is political’. Governments around the world know this; anyone who is concerned about education must know it, too, and be prepared to resist and call for change wherever in the world political, economic, and corporate agendas are served at the expense of genuine education.

References

BARLOW, M. and ROBERTSON, H.-J. (1994) Class Warfare: The Assault on Canada’s Schools (Toronto, ON: Key Porter).

BENCZE, L. (1999) Ontario’s curriculum for science & technology, grades 1-8: why not let kids colour outside the lines? Our Schools/Our Selves, 9 (6), 18-28.

COOKE, D. (1997) Why I support teachers. Our Schools/Our Selves, 8 (6), 21-23.

DEI, G. J. S. and KARUMANCHERY, L. L. (1999) School reforms in Ontario: the ‘marketization of education’ and the resulting silence on equity. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45 (2), 111-131.

GEWIRTZ, S., BALL, S. J. and BOWE, R. (1995) Markets, Choice and Equity in Education (Buckingham, UK: Open University Press).

HAGGERTY, S. (1998) Personal communication (Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario).

HARRIS, D. and TAYLOR, M. (1983) Discovery learning in school science: the myth and the reality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15 (3), 277-289.

HODSON, D. (1996) Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28 (2), 115-135.

JENKINS, E. W. (1992) School science education: towards a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24 (3), 229-246.

McNAMARA, D. (1993) Towards reestablishing the professional authority and expertise of teacher educators and teachers. In P. Gilroy and M. Smith (eds), International Analyses of Teacher Education: JET Papers One (Abingdon, UK: Carfax), 277-191.

MILLAR, R. (1985) Training the mind: continuity and change in the rhetoric of school science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17 (4), 369-382.

MILLAR, R. and DRIVER, R. (1987) Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.

MOLNAR, A. (1996) Giving Kids the Bu$iness: The Commercialization of America’s Schools (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (OMET) (1995) The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcomes, Grades 1-9 (Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training).

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (OMET) (1997) The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8 (Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training).

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (OMET) (1998) The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8, Science and Technology (Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training).

OSBORNE, K. (1993) The emerging agenda for Canadian high schools. Our Schools/Our Selves, 4 (3), 62-80.

SEDUNARY, E. (1996) ‘Neither new nor alien to progressive thinking’: interpreting the convergence of radical education and the new vocationalism in Australia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28 (4), 369-396

SUZUKI, D. (1982) Public address on science and science education. The University of Alberta, Edmonton.

TAYLOR, A. (1998) Employability skills: from corporate ‘wish list’ to government policy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30 (2), 143-164.

WIEN, C. A. and DUDLEY-MARLING, C. (1998) Limited vision: the Ontario curriculum and outcomes-based learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 23 (4), 405-420.

---

Publisher's information |  | Other Op-eds and Commentary