Today, the bill to extend the kindergarten day has been passed.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Showing posts with label ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ontario. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
McGuinty fights back
This will be just a quick post.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Dumbing it down for the dumb
There's going to be a revised curriculum for elementary school, I think mainly the primary grades. Not only are students complaining about the "unreasonably high" load of homework given to them, but parents and teachers are also filing complaints. The whiners are also saying that the material is becoming too difficult for the students' brains, which have not developed the mental capacity needed to grasp the learning content yet. Hence, the curriculum is sent to the gallows for some quick cuts, and the provincial standard for math is lowered (math is just one of the main subjects that are being chopped crudely, but other subjects are also under fire).
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
