War Against Science Waged in B.C. Classrooms

As is often the case with change, some people welcome the opportunity while others are wary of making things worse. For B.C. teachers, changes to the B.C. curriculum drafts in the areas of science and environmental education might be a cause to be wary. While the general decision to revise the B.C. curriculum may be rooted in good intentions, some teachers are concerned this shift provides an opportunity to cut vital learning objectives from public education.

Recently, B.C. teacher Lenny Ross expressed concern about the implications of these curriculum changes. His essay, "Concerns With the Transformation of the B.C. Curriculum," which was sent to colleagues and educators province-wide, highlights his dismay with the proposed changes, which have nearly eliminated environmental education from B.C. curriculum.

Ross, who has a Master's in environmental education from the University of Victoria, is a grade 4/5 teacher in the Greater Victoria School District. In his essay, he points out that the current curriculum includes a consistent environment sciences framework, which is built up from K-12 to develop eco-literacy. The latest draft revision dismantles this specifically structured environmental curriculum.

This, he believes, is a dangerous omission. “We are in a time of grave environmental peril,” Ross wrote. “Our governments are waging a sustained and successful war against the development of an informed, involved and environmentally knowledgeable citizenry.”

In the current curriculum, "life sciences," encompasses the majority of environmental education learning objectives. Starting in kindergarten with “characteristics of living things” to Grade 7 “ecology,” environmental science is iterated and the learning expectations are clearly communicated. The latest curriculum draft revision no longer expressly includes “life sciences.”

Ross wonders why environmental terms and learning objectives appear to be specifically removed from the draft, while other learning outcomes remain mysteriously intact. For example, Ross wrote "students (in grade four) currently study weather, and its impacts on humans, different habitats and ecosystems, food chains, and adaptations of animals to survive; we have the strongest focus on ecology in the elementary years. This has been replaced with the study of atoms and molecules, 10 forms of energy, and the rock cycle. Hardly 'Big Idea' topics that [nine]-year-olds get passionate about."

The ambition to make changes to B.C. curriculum was born of the idea that the current one had too many explicit learning objectives and, as a result, impacted a teacher’s ability to focus on “big ideas.” The hope is that students will be taught how to think, not what to think.

The B.C. Ministry of Education's Learn magazine confirms the current B.C. curriculum has more than "164 discrete learning outcomes for grade two" alone. According to Rod Allen, superintendent of the Ministry of Education’s learning division, “many teachers find that the focus of instruction is on covering the curriculum rather than student learning.” Allen has been criticized in the past for his position on special education curriculum and for potentially opening up the B.C. Education Plan to influence from private corporations.

 “We started with a conceptual framework defining the core competencies we want to develop in students,” Faizel Rawji, principal of Senator Reis Elementary School in Surrey, told Learn Magazine. She explains that curriculum developers are looking to create a more student-centred approach to learning and they are hoping the curriculum changes will allow teachers to develop more meaningful learning outcomes with their classes.

Of course, it is possible that a teacher, who is able and motivated to make the necessary connections with environmental sciences, will not be impeded by the shift in guidelines. Physics, biology and chemistry concepts are still clearly outlined and each of these topics could incorporate the missing "life sciences." Still, that is no guarantee that they will be taught. New teachers may not even think to include it if it isn't outlined as a goal.

Ross agrees the shift to less prescriptive learning outcomes isn't a bad idea. However, he thinks the explicit terms of environmental education ought to exist. “Becoming an eco-literate citizen that in turn creates an eco-literate society is rapidly becoming one of the most important knowledge sets for our future,” he wrote. “Yet our provincial government has created a curriculum that destroys the cohesiveness of what little environmental education we had.”

"I don't disagree with that approach to teaching,” Ross wrote,  “but what idea could be bigger, or I might add, more age appropriate, than the study of nature integrated into the larger concepts of ecology?”