The B.C. education ministry is planning a fundamental change in the way children are taught. Schools devote too much time to facts and figures, the ministry believes, and not enough to "big ideas."
Some educators complain that classwork is overloaded with micro-level details. Which side won the War of 1812? Why do ferrous metals rust? When are quotation marks used?
They want to focus instead on macro-level concepts that form our broader understanding of the world.
Humanity's aggressive instinct is what's important about the War of 1812, not who won.
Rust matters because it shows that physical materials are constantly changing. Quotation marks gain meaning from the language we use to communicate.
Concepts like these - aggression, change, communication - are the real building blocks of knowledge, and that is where the curriculum should focus.
It's a controversial scheme. But last year, the ministry asked a panel of experts to give their opinion.
The panel's report, titled "Enabling Innovation," has just been released. It endorses wholeheartedly the view that school lessons should be based more on concepts than facts.
Before dealing with the meat of the report, the panel's composition must be noted. All 13 members were drawn from the education community. No representatives from the private sector were involved. None of the professions, other than teaching and child psychology, were represented. No one was present to give the perspective of employers, parents or the broader community.
That might be acceptable if a change in direction had already been decided, and the ministry simply wanted some details filled in. But supposedly this scheme is still at the discussion stage. Is the proposal so weak it cannot stand up to an opposing point of view?
And there certainly are opponents. Some critics point out that concepts such as aggression or change can only be understood with a foundation of real-life knowledge to draw on. Kids have to possess a body of facts before they can recognize the patterns that link them.
Try teaching a child to ride a bicycle by giving a lecture on the concept of balance. The idea is meaningless without the first-hand experience of actually riding a bike.
There are also concerns about the potential for indoctrination. Without a strong fact base, children are vulnerable to all manner of dubious ideas and unsupported viewpoints.
The War of 1812 certainly was an example of human aggression, but it also had elements of anti-colonialism.
Then again, how about the civil-rights movement? Or environmental protests? Or union picket lines? These might occasionally feature acts of violence, so are they also instances of aggression? Considering their ultimate goal, most of us would place them in a different category.
And that seems to be the issue here. It takes a lot of factual knowledge to employ the concepts in question. We count on the education system to ensure that everyone starts out with those facts in their possession.
A curriculum is more than just a lesson plan. It is also a repository of the knowledge our society needs to function.
Of course, there is always room for improvement. The old "chalk and talk" style of teaching that bored generations of kids certainly had its limitations. Mere rote memorizing is not a model for genuine understanding.
But every couple of decades, it seems our school system is seized with another fad. And usually, the impetus is toward dumping content in favour of more abstract notions.
If the ministry is serious about this latest idea, it should consult people who have to deal with the end product.
Employers and post-secondary institutions already complain that kids leave high school without an adequate knowledge of the fundamentals.
Replacing facts with "big ideas" will only make that problem worse.
