In the article, “The Community School Literally Takes Place in the Community”: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-Land Movement of the West Kootenays, 1959-1980” by Nancy Janovicek examines the reason for the shift to rural areas and how the method of a traditional curriculum was replaced by an alternative one which proved beneficial. The author explained that people wanted to get away from the cities with pollution and corruption and get back to teaching self-sufficiency in a more natural setting, as stated, “Self-education, self-reliance and local control over governance and resources were central tenets of the counterculture.”[1] This back to the land movement transitioned into the education method as they wanted a less rigid and government controlled structure and wanted to enable children with a more hands on approach with autonomy and less rigidity. These alternative schools were more child-centered than traditional education. The author provides a clear understanding to the shift to a rural setting and implementing a different method of education. As well, the author compares and contrast the two methods and provides data to show that the alternative method was more desirable by examining how these alternative schools had similarities to public schools such as, “they still followed specific child-development theories and educational methodologies.”[2] and they, “combined traditional curriculum with rural skills, and followed a cooperative governance structure.”[3] The main focus these schools had in common as stated, “What these schools had in common was a commitment to encouraging students to become independent, critical thinkers who would be engaged in their community and the world.”[4] These ideologies and points show how alternative schools blended the two methods in a very comprehensive and beneficial way. The author furthers her point of view when she stated, “Increasing emphasis on raising educational standards, rather than fostering intelligent children’s path to self-discovery, made children “bored, fearful, and confused.””[5] Although the author primarily focuses on the positives of these alternative schools, she does touch on the obstacles such as funding, and finding suitable educators.

Deborah Gorham’s article, “The Ottawa New School and Education Dissent in Ontario in the Hall-Dennis Era” is a first-hand experience of the author’s involvement in starting up a “New School” in Ottawa. The author incorporates questionnaires that parents answered in response to the education received which gives the reader aspects of what occurred in the 1960s within schools. The overall focus is placed on the balance between the rigid and flexibility of school and the objective of the “New School” was to provide more freedom, a good atmosphere and less rigidity for the children to learn. As the author stated, “The classrooms tend to be flexible and fluid rather than rigid.”[6] However, the feedback from the parents indicated their concern of the lack of structure and guidelines.[7] It went onto reveal their concerns that without the government’s rigid curriculum that the children were not learning to the same capacity in these more flexible methods offered. The author searches for validation of what accomplishments these schools managed to make in a limited time that they were implemented.

The article, “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes- Based Learning” by Carol Anne Wien and Curt Dudley-Marling focuses on how keeping a traditional curriculum, that is provincially wide, is easier to maintain throughout the provinces as opposed to having multiple curriculums being orientated at different schools. This author’s primary objective is to show how the traditional method of education should be standardized. This argument is demonstrated in this statement, “Province-wide consistency will be helpful to students who change schools, and will help parents in all regions to have a clear understanding of their child’s progress.”[8] High expectations were beginning to take place with the new curriculum being implemented, as stated, “Not students should, might, could, can or may, or even ‘it is expected that students will,’ and not some or most or many, but students will.’”[9] This gives insight into the rigid structure that was taking place, in which the government can control. The author states, “A standardized curriculum and more frequent testing also effect more efficient surveillance and control of teachers’ and students’ behavior.”[10] The increase of authority in the schools’ new curriculum is shown throughout this article as beneficial and as a means to, uphold a proper and consistent criteria for all students. Unlike other articles that support alternative learning, this article is very pro traditional education across Canada.

 

Bibliography:

Gorham, Deborah. “The Ottawa New School and Educational Dissent inOntario in the Hall Dennis Era,” Historical Studies in Education, 21, Vol. 2 (2009): 104-122. http://historicalstudiesineducation.ca/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/2129/2272.

Janovicek, Nancy. ““The Community School Literally Takes Place in the Community”: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-Land Movement of the West Kootenays, 1959  1980,” Historical Studies in Education, 24, No. 1 (2012): 150-169.            http://historicalstudiesineducation.ca/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/viewFile/4073/4310.

Wein, Carol Anne and Curt Dudley-Marling. “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 400-412.

 

Endnotes:

[1] Nancy Janovicek, “The Community School Literally Takes Place in the Community”: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-Land Movement of the West Kootenays, 1959-1980,” Historical Studies in Education, 24, No. 1 (2012): 152.

http://historicalstudiesineducation.ca/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/viewFile/4073/4310.

[2] Ibid, 151.

[3] Ibid, 151.

[4] Ibid, 151.

[5] Ibid, 152.

[6] Deborah Gorham, “The Ottawa New School and Educational Dissent in Ontario in the Hall-Dennis Era,” Historical Studies in Education, 21, Vol. 2 (2009): 117.

http://historicalstudiesineducation.ca/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/2129/2272.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Carol Anne Wein, and Curt Dudley-Marling, “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 401.

[9] Ibid, 402.

[10] Ibid, 404.