Before getting to business I thought I’d share a bit of a status update at more or less the five month mark of this publication.
On the downside, The Audit doesn’t reach nearly as many Canadian readers as I’d like. I genuinely believe that the stuff you’re reading can make a difference. I just wish there were more good people like you.
On the upside, nearly 300 of you have subscribed and, even better, around 55% of subscribers actually open each email - which I’m told is pretty high as these things go.
I should add that I appreciate the topic suggestions you’re sending me. Many of them have joined the 20 or so ideas that are currently sitting my article queue.
Some of the larger topics I hope to tackle include:
First Nation treaties, reserve status, and government policy
The fertility crisis and families in Canada
and just how much federal government money is channeled into for-profit publishing businesses through arts grants
…All of which deserve our attention. But they’ll also all require time, which is a finite resource around here.
Well in case you haven’t yet, I’ll bet you know exactly what to do with this button:
Some time ago, while researching my Understanding Education Policy in Ontario post, I sent this email through the Ministry of Education website:
I'm looking for access to the research papers on which the Ministry bases its policy and curriculum changes. As an example, I would love to see what stands behind the "evidence-based" and "research-informed pedagogy" changes referenced here:
27 long days later - and after reaching out to my MPP - I received this reply from the Curriculum, Assessment and Student Success Policy Branch (emphasis mine):
The ministry curriculum review process includes research, information gathering and fact-checking, to ensure that the curriculum is guided by research and evidence-informed practices and is focused on addressing the needs of all students in Ontario. Research is an important first step in the curriculum revision process. The ministry undertakes research and technical analysis to reflect new evidence, subject-matter developments and best practices in the learning area or subject discipline. It is not ministry practice to share specific details about the research.
To which I replied:
Just to be sure I understand: does "It is not ministry practice to share specific details about the research" mean that there's no way for stakeholders, parents, taxpayers, and policy analysts to assess the quality and context of the ministry's publicly-funded research?
To date there’s been no reply.
To be honest, I’m a little bit relieved by the ministry’s non-response. Aside from the fact that it saves me the tedious work of analyzing their sources, the email had a subtext whose clarity and succinctness was almost elegant: “We’re the educated and tenured experts here. How dare you insinuate that our (constantly changing) policies might be anything short of perfect! Learn your place, peasant.”
Now this isn’t an industry-wide attitude. As we saw in that earlier article, the Toronto District School Board seems only too happy to share their academic inspiration with the world. But there’s a whiff of a self-styled sacred priesthood hanging over the public education sector.
But there’s a whiff of a self-styled sacred priesthood hanging over the public education sector.” Absolutely brilliant, David. I know a few teachers with that same smug authoritarian attitude. What's that joke? "You can always tell a teacher..... But you can't tell 'em much."
As a US citizen, I did not realize that in Canada, one of the planet’s foremost democracies, that education curriculum research, related analysis and development are a matter of national security requiring such highly classified status that the government will not share the information with its citizens!