Thread by @LouroAlfredo

I was involved in the curriculum review before the UCP came in, in the area of science. Given what I know about the process, I have some thoughts about the document that has come to light in K-4 social studies. 1/10

In the previous process, AB Ed curriculum specialists led meetings with hundreds of teachers, plus some content experts like myself. We met periodically for 3 days at a time. 2/10

The AB Ed people explained the desired structure of the curriculum: at the highest level essential understandings, then guiding questions, and under these, the learning outcomes. The other component was the necessary competencies and skills. 3/10

These components were clearly defined, down to sentence structure and verbs that we should use. 4/10

Given this structure, the working groups came up with the content of the curriculum. These were discussions that took many hours. All content was developed collaboratively between teachers and content specialists. The AB Ed people did not write the curriculum, we did. 5/10

The document that came to light today seems to preserve the structure. But the content is written by one person, presumably Chris Champion, whose name appears in the name of the file. There are even several instances of sentences written in the first person singular. 6/10

This means that there was no collaboration whatsoever in writing this curriculum. This is a significant departure from the previous process. There is no one giving feedback, or arguing a point. There is no consensus among professionals. 7/10

Also, the author evidently is not a teacher, and has no experience in education, specially in the early grades. I cannot emphasize enough how aberrant it is to have a single person who is not a professional write a curriculum. 8/10

The minister's press secretary assured the public that the document was not final, and that it would be reviewed by working groups of hundreds of teachers. But it's not a matter of reviewing it. This document cannot be tweaked and made better by anyone. 9/10

The document is an amateurish screed with an obtuse ideological agenda. It is worse than worthless. And the responsibility must be laid squarely at the feet of @AdrianaLaGrange . 10/10