Dear fellow petitioners, My apologies for bothering you again. I have tried contacting the Ministry to confirm whether the Minister has indeed stopped the harmful Inspiring Education initiative, but they have not returned my call. Today, I was told that an insider indicated that "only the name has changed and the new government is fully committed to the principles of IE." I am not sure how true this is, but this is upsetting. I was actually starting to have faith in this new government. The Ministry is misguided if they think they can quiet us with false assurances. I know, dear friends, you must be tired of writing letters, but in the end, only words can change the world. If you can write Minister Eggen a letter to express your concerns, that would be so appreciated. However, if you don't have a lot of time, then if you don't mind signing the new letter that I have written (link attached), it would be wonderful. The spring session of the legislature will start up again March 8th, and the opposition parties would not address our issue unless we prove to them that our cause is still just as important as all the other education-related concerns out there right now: http://www.albertansforeducation.com/contact-your-mla/ Thank you so much. Kindest regards, Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies mrgranthd@yahoo.ca p.s. Here is an excellent letter that a local teacher just sent to the Minister: "Thank you for your response. Your comments regarding math skills are reassuring, but other areas of the curriculum remain a concern. I took part in a short-term teaching exchange to Germany in the past year. When my counterpart visited our school, she could not believe how much time during the school day was wasted on children pursuing personal hobbies and peer-influenced interests when their basic academic and social skills were so weak. She witnessed students who arrived in grade 8 ELA class not being able to craft a complex sentence or read a history document that was written in cursive writing. I agree with her assessment. In the past five years I have seen the school day watered down to such a degree that I have real concerns about these students’ futures. Their activities in some classes aren’t much different than what they do during their free time outside of school. Consider the following: 1. Despite a promise of greater emphasis on literacy and numeracy, the time spent on core subjects in elementary grades is continually being eroded. There are many special events and celebrations that take away valuable time and now even more option classes are being added to the younger grades. In our school, for instance, students in Div. 2 have 80 minutes of CTF options each week (in addition to fine arts, religion, and language options) where they choose from project-based technology activities like learning how to use apps to add crazy lenses to iPhone photos or playing the video game “Minecraft” (a game that does have a combat component). Both the American and Canadian Pediatric Associations warn against large amounts of screen time for children due to addiction-like consequences on mental and physical health. Why are schools part of the problem instead of the solution? Administrators and consultants publicize CTF as “cutting edge”. Teachers see it as cutting out real learning. “CTF” has been jokingly switched around to “FTC” (as in “screw” the curriculum). 2. The emphasis on restoring math skills must now be directed to English Language Arts and basic literacy. As a junior high teacher, it is surprising how much re-teaching I must do to correct poorly or incorrectly taught grammar and punctuation basics. This is not due to technology. It is the fault of non-specialist teachers not knowing the English basics they teach, or even more worrisome, choosing to ignore skills in the curriculum they personally deem unimportant. Another factor is the focus on student choice and student-centered lessons at the expense of proper direct teaching of mandatory essentials. We cannot leave a student’s fundamental literacy skills to appear “by chance” while completing a project. 3. Why is there no consequence for schools or teachers who completely disregard the mandated curriculum – especially when experts in the field of neuroscience and business have raised concerns? I am talking about cursive writing. In Pacific Rim and European countries, penmanship is taught like an art; handwriting is valued for its impact on cognitive development; occupational therapists work with children’s fine motor skills; and writing is seen as an extension of one’s self. Our current ELA curriculum has the following progression of printing and writing skills as stated in Outcome 4.1 - Enhance Clarity and Artistry of Communication: Grade 2 - print legibly and efficiently, forming letters of consistent size and shape, and spacing words appropriately Grade 3 – print legibly, and begin to learn proper alignment, shape and slant of writing Grade 4 – write legibly, using a style that demonstrates awareness of alignment, shape and slant Grade 5 – write legibly, using a style that is consistent in alignment, shape and slant Grade 6 – write legibly and at a pace appropriate to context and purpose Grade 7 –choose and use printing, writing or word processing, depending on the task, audience and purpose Notice how student choice of printing or writing is only supposed to occur in grade 7 after students have mastered both? This makes complete sense. So why do my students arrive in grade 8 and not know how to write? They can’t read a primary research document in history that is handwritten, or a letter from their grandparents (as one parent complained), let alone know how to make a capital “S” in handwriting”? It is not only a shame, but also a complete legal failure to deliver a provincially mandated curriculum. I can’t believe we haven’t been sued over this one. I am enclosing articles from the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, etc. which present research on the development of cursive writing and its effect on language learning and cognitive processing. As well there are features about the difficulty this lack of skill presents in the world of work. This came to my attention when my sister, a CEO in banking, mentioned an executive search firm insisting on a handwriting sample, which is a rising trend in other countries to stream potential candidates for high profile positions. Change in education occurs in pendulum-like patterns. Daniel T. Willingham, a cognitive psychologist and Harvard graduate who now teaches at the University of Virginia, focuses his research on the application of learning and memory findings on K-12 education. He says there have been a hundred years worth of theoretical retreading and extreme overhauls in an attempt to make schooling more relevant to life and work: “In the 1920’s the idea was called progressive education. In the 1950’s it was called the Life Adjustment Movement. In the 70’s it was Bruner’s Discovery Learning; and in the 1990’s, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). As a consequence of each movement, school curricula were filled with projects that appeared to have real-world applicability. After about a decade following each, people started to notice that students lacked factual knowledge and the “back to basics” pendulum would swing again.” Here we are on the latest bandwagon of “twenty-first century skills”. We need to keep a balance of what’s important instead of diving into another costly, unneeded overhaul. Willingham insists, “Both factual knowledge and thinking skills are essential for students to be able to solve meaningful problems. Imparting both to students is difficult; there is no doubt. Unfortunately we keep taking on this problem in the same ineffectual way.” The trend to discard basic skills for technology, ease, and convenience is analogous to the food movement when society embraced that which was microwavable or processed over slower, more traditional methods of meal preparation. And years later, we are returning to processes that stood the test of time and, while many saw them as outdated or old-fashioned, were in the best interests of our children’s well-being all along."