pedagogy, skills and knowledge to move flu- idly between in-person and online learning. Not all skills are easily transferable from one mode of instruction to the other. Assessment and evaluation are an example of this. While there are some digital tools that are helpful in assessment and evaluation, the practice of assessment and evaluation is very chal- lenging online. Challenges that teachers face include the ability to observe elementary stu- dents during the process of learning such as problem solving, inquiring or doing any sort of “active” learning and the numerous issues that present when trying to determine the au- thenticity of student work. The plan also does not address very real
concerns such as the option for a student to transition back and forth between in- person and remote learning throughout the year; responsibilities for IEP completion; the role of specialized teachers such as teacher- librarians, guidance, physical education, the arts; the role of occasional teachers or other education workers such as DECEs; and the responsibility for managing, distributing and funding materials and devices for students’ learning virtually.
Misconception: Because the government will be mandating virtual learning, it will be providing additional funding to ensure its success.
Fact: Even though all school boards will be required to offer virtual learning for anyone who chooses it, no additional funding is be- ing provided by the Ministry. This will signifi- cantly stretch the funding dollars that boards have at a time when they are already struggling to recover from the pandemic. Boards will be trying to do more with less money which will mean cuts to already vulnerable programs. This plan has also proposed significant
changes to online learning at the secondary level. This will undoubtedly impact direct funding to elementary schools as money will need to be redirected to support the imple- mentation of these sweeping changes at the secondary level. This will impact every stu- dent served by the board, including elemen- tary students.
Misconception: TVO has always created content that we have used. What’s changed?
Fact: TVO/TFO’s role in this proposed plan is significant and highly concerning. TVO/TFO would be given a broad mandate to control course and content creation, prescribe the use of instructional tools and resources and
establish ways of data collection and shar- ing. Although TVO/TFO are experienced at creating content, they do not have the expertise to meet the complex and varied needs of Ontario students. The govern- ment’s expansion of the mandate for TVO/ TFO regarding online education allows not only for TVO and TFO to hire their own staff for the creation and delivery of online courses, but also allows them to outsource content creation, infrastructure and deliv- ery to for-profit companies. Local school boards and educators know their students’ learning needs best. The increased role of TVO/TFO and other agencies in this plan is yet another way the Ford government is reducing funding to school boards and cen- tralizing power to a third-party provider.
LOOKING FORWARD
Ontario’s schools have experienced tre- mendous challenges over the past year and a half and this has had a substantial, negative impact on the mental and physi- cal health of our students and educators. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Ford government is presenting permanent virtual learning as an unsolicited option even though it is clearly not in the best in- terest of Ontario students. Presenting this plan as ground-breaking
is disingenuous. Let’s be clear: having access to innovative technologies, electronic re- sources and digital tools while also develop- ing the skills to be digitally fluent does not require teaching and learning to happen in a permanent virtual learning environment with full-day live teaching. Full-time virtual learning for elementa-
ry students cannot replace in-person learn- ing and the move to make virtual synchro- nous learning (live teaching) a permanent option for elementary students would be a fundamental and significant change to public education in Ontario. This change would have far-reaching short-term and long-term repercussions including fund- ing for public schools, student and edu- cator mental health and wellness, and the learning environment. In-person learning continues to be the most equitable public education model for students providing the highest quality teaching model with the best learning experience for all students. n
Julie Millan and Leah Kearney are executive staff members at ETFO.
“PRESENTING THIS PLAN AS GROUND-BREAKING IS DISINGENUOUS. LET’S BE CLEAR: HAVING ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND DIGITAL TOOLS WHILE ALSO DEVELOPING THE SKILLS TO BE DIGITALLY FLUENT DOES NOT REQUIRE TEACHING AND LEARNING TO HAPPEN IN A PERMANENT VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT WITH FULL-DAY LIVE TEACHING.”
ELEMENTARY TE ACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO 31 ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
