For the Love of Learning

Volume II: Learning - Our Vision for Schools

Chapter 9: The Learner from Age 15 to 18: Further Education and Specialization Years

It is our hope and expectation that, were the kind of system we have described in place for young learners, the more specialized program, beginning in Grade 10, would rest on a very solid foundation of learning skills, subject matter, knowledge of community and self, and on exposure to a large number of work settings. By the end of Grade 9, students would be ready and eager to commit themselves to some specialization, with a view to a post-secondary career; education from Grade 10 on would be a mixture of further general education and opportunities for specialization, and would help students make choices based on their sense of future possibilities.

In the preceding chapters we have been building a learning system that begins between the ages of 3 and 6, and continues from age 6 to 15, using a single curriculum that occupies at least 90 percent of all students' school time. We have emphasized what we call literacies, defined as the ability to read, write, reason, and think intelligently across a wide variety of subject areas.

We have also placed a high value on a learning system that is focused, purposeful, challenging, and intellectually rewarding. We have defined what we think are the foundation skills, which should be strongly emphasized in the early years of the common curriculum, especially from Grades 1 to 6. We have suggested a curriculum that is centrally developed, and detailed enough to provide consistency across schools and teachers without overly constraining the teachers and the communities they serve.

As well, we have described and recommended ways of assuring that students are well looked after individually, and that their progress is regularly monitored over time. We have urged that, from the time students enter adolescence, they, their teachers, and parents pay serious attention to academic and experiential preparation for post-secondary education and for work. We believe that, were such a system in place, students would be further advanced at an earlier age than is now the case: that a Grade 7 student in such a system would have the skills and knowledge more closely associated with today's Grade 9 student.

The same emphasis on essential literacies, on challenge and rigor, and on coherent programming, must inform students' education after the common core curriculum years. As well, the concern we have expressed about support for students' personal, social, and educational/career planning in early adolescence is as much of an issue in the student's later years. Smaller school units, teacher-advisors, and support from career education specialists are important to 15- to 18-year-olds as well as to youngsters of 12 to 14, and we envision a system in which all adolescents find their education organized with these concerns in mind, as well as the concern for their development as responsible decision-makers, with a strong voice and choice in matters that directly concern them.

We envision a school that, from Grade 10 on, encourages specialization by interest, but does not separate students into disparate groups. It permits considerable flexibility, while depending on small school units and teacher advisory groups to give students a sense of belonging and of a peer group.

While we are satisfied that our argument for this kind of schooling is logical - that a more focused, challenging, supportive, and common educational experience through Grade 9 will prepare students for a greater degree of specialization, combined with a solid core of general education at a higher level - we have no illusion that such a restructured secondary system will satisfy everyone.

There is, after all, no part of the educational system more fraught with controversy and disagreement about purpose and structure than the secondary curriculum. It has always been thus - and not only in Ontario: the same issues about the nature of post-elementary education are debated everywhere. A move to earlier specialization is applauded by some, but heartily rejected by others, who see quality and equality in a common core of courses to be taken by all students. On the other hand, specifying a large number of required courses for all students is resisted by students who want more choice, and by those who feel that students' interests and talents differ too much for them to be bound to a common curriculum.

In addition to disagreements about specialization and choice versus general education and a common course of study, there is the ever-present controversy about the necessity of providing different types of courses, streams, or programs in response to the varying levels of achievement, ability, or motivation that characterize any large group of students, and meeting the needs of both university-bound and other students.

As a group, we Commissioners are a microcosm of the diversity of public opinion and the desire to satisfy several different and sometimes conflicting agendas for students who are 15 or 16 and older. Our plan, which is a real compromise between the general and the specialized, and between a common core and the need to accommodate differences, is necessarily complex, and will inevitably leave many educators and lay persons dissatisfied, either because it does not wholly endorse the option they prefer or because it is less simple, less clear, and less well-defined than they hoped.

We do not apologize for the fact that it is a mixed, not a pure, solution. We believe that a system that attempts to accommodate the tensions within itself - however uneasily - is better than one that ignores those tensions. That it is complex cannot be helped: compromise based on honouring diverse, legitimate intentions and preferences does not result in simple solutions.

We freely admit that it will depend on others for more definition and clarification, and we acknowledge the inadequacy of both the time frame under which we have operated and the very significant technical expertise required to implement new programs in the specialized area of curriculum design and organization.

If the concept of secondary education that we are offering finds significant public support, its successful development and delivery will depend in very large measure on the technical skill and the good will of curriculum planners and professional educators.

In the following pages, we will first describe the existing organization of secondary education, and then offer a series of recommendations on its reform, aimed at creating a system that is more equitable and more successful for more students. We will make some suggestions concerning the content as well as the organization of curriculum. Finally, we will talk about the transition between school and post-secondary life as a complex one, one that is not always direct or unidirectional, and suggest ways of strengthening the transition for both young and adult learners.

The current context of secondary education in Ontario

In the 1980s, after extensive debate and consultation and after several secondary education reform committees had been appointed to respond to public concern about a program that was seen as too loosely structured and choice-driven, the Ministry decided that much of the secondary curriculum would be mandatory and uniform for all students. It replaced a "cafeteria style" curriculum menu that had been created, a decade or so earlier, as a reaction to the belief that the existing program was excessively rigid and restrictive. This is a perfect example of the cyclical nature of action and reaction that underlies so much educational reform.

The document that resulted from all the work of the early '80s is called OSIS (Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Senior). It defines secondary school de facto as four to five years, beginning after Grade 8. The curriculum is defined by credits, with every course credit being earned through 110 hours of in-school work (except for co-operative education credits, which are a combination of in-school and work-site hours). Thirty credits are required for graduation with an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD); of these, 16 are specified and the other 14 chosen from a range of options.

If students complete most of the 16 specified credits in their first two years (eight per year), as teachers and counsellors have generally encouraged them to, they can choose many of their courses in the final two to three years. While it is quite possible for students to graduate in four years - the OSIS plan intended that - most students who complete the OSSD still take longer to do so, i.e., four and a half to five years.

In some cases, this is because students are working part-time or are repeating courses they have failed or in which they want to improve their mark (only the higher mark is entered on the record). In other cases, students complete more than 30 credits before they leave high school because they wish to pursue different interests; those who are going on to university want to accumulate high marks in the courses that are most important for admission, and take the Ontario Academic Courses (OACs) until they have the required minimum (six), with high marks in each.

Under OSIS, almost all courses are streamed - that is, offered at three levels of difficulty: as advanced (the university-qualifying courses), general, and basic. (The OACs are the exception: by definition, these university-qualifying courses are offered only at the advanced level.)

The purpose is to give all students the same choice of subjects and opportunity for success at whichever of the three levels of difficulty is suited to their ability and prior achievement. While one might expect an even distribution of students among the three levels, that is not what happens: because two-thirds of students entering secondary school want to go to university, they therefore choose all or almost all their courses at the advanced level, obviously because these are the only ones accepted by universities. Only about one in three who follow this sequence from Grade 9 to graduation actually enter university (because of the limited number of university spaces); some go to college, others to different kinds of private post-secondary training or directly to work. About 88 percent of students who begin Grade 9 in advanced-level courses complete their OSSD, although some switch and take some or almost all their courses at the general level before they graduate.

Just over one in four students begin Grade 9 taking general-level courses, and another 5 percent take mainly basic-level courses. In both categories there is an over-representation of children of working-class parents, while the children of professional and managerial parents are under-represented. (Many students in basic-level courses have not graduated from Grade 8, and have been transferred rather than promoted to secondary school.)

The non-completion (drop-out) rate for students from general level courses is 58 percent, and for those from basic-level courses it is 65 percent - about six times higher than for those in advanced level. The difference in both selection and retention rates makes it clear that the three levels are not equally appealing or equally satisfying. There is general agreement that one cause of the high drop-out rate among those enrolled in general- and basic-level courses is that they recognize that these courses do not lead anywhere.

Unlike the high achievement in advanced-level courses, the exclusive route to university, excellent performance in the other two levels guarantees nothing. They are not an exclusive route to college: colleges can, and often do, admit students who have completed the advanced-level/OAC course but whose marks were not high enough to qualify them for university.

Aside from university and college, there are very few post-secondary destinations or training programs to which students can go. Ontario has very few apprenticeship places, and no tradition of employers hiring inexperienced workers, intending to make a substantial investment in their training.

In fact, the only clear destination for secondary students who want one is university: only the advanced-level/OAC/university path is a clear, if highly competitive, one. The confused and confusing mandate of the colleges is part of the larger issue of unclear paths and lack of purpose confronting students who do not choose advanced-level courses.

While the colleges have recently examined their course offerings and the organization of their programs, their mandate remains unclear insofar as client groups are concerned - in our opinion, to the detriment of secondary school students who would benefit from having a valid alternative destination to university.

Figure 1 shows that, while 29 percent of students taking mainly advanced-level courses went to college, only 12 percent of those taking general-level, and 2 percent of those taking basic-level, courses did. Moreover, of the advanced-level students, the only ones who can reach university, 37 percent did.(2) Thus advanced-level students not only have a unique option (which they may or may not reach, but which only they can aim for), they also are much more likely to be accepted into college. Put another way, and adjusting for the high drop-out rates of students in basic- and general-level courses, the chances of high school graduates within each stream going directly to post-secondary education (college, for those taking general- and basic-level courses, college or university for those taking advanced courses) are about 1 in 17.5 for students graduating with basic-level courses; 1 in 3.5 for graduates of the general level; and 1 in 1.3 for advanced-level course graduates. In terms of post-secondary education, there is no question about a differential pay-off for the high school diploma, based on course level, or stream.

It is clear to us that students in advanced-level courses have a double advantage: they are being uniquely qualified to apply to university, and are more likely to be accepted into college. Conversely, students in the other two programs have a double disadvantage, and it is out of respect and concern for them that we believe the college mandate should be re-examined and clarified.

Clearly, the organization of the curriculum according to three levels of difficulty, as set out in OSIS, was unsuccessful in providing a meaningful or equal route to post-secondary education and work for most students. It does sort students more or less effectively as far as university admission is concerned, but it clearly fails to provide most students who will not be going to university with feasible alternatives. One result of this situation - although not the only one - is the dramatically different drop-out rates between advanced-level students and those in the other two programs.

The efforts of some colleges in recent years to increase accessibility to a variety of groups must be acknowledged. One of the issues that must be considered as well is the literacy and numeracy levels of students who have completed general- and basic-level programs. Space providing, the likelihood of more of these students gaining admission to colleges would increase if they had the skills to cope with an increasingly demanding program.

Recommendation 15

*We recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training review community college education - its mandate, funding, coherence, and how it fits into the system of education in Ontario, including clarification of access routes from secondary school to college, and with special attention being paid to students who are not university bound.

As well, colleges should be encouraged to implement appropriate recommendations from Vision 2000, the key directions document that resulted from a provincial consultation in 1988 and 1989.

In the second half of the last decade, educators and the public began to question the high school drop-out rate, and to look for ways of lowering it; that rate has become the source of considerable debate, and has driven attempts at reform, such as the destreamed Grade 9, and reactions against such attempts. The four- to five-year drop-out rate (the percentage of students who begin Grade 9 and do not have a diploma four to five years later) is currently estimated at between 18 and 30 percent, depending on the way it is calculated. The most current source we know suggests that it is indeed 30 percent, although one-third of those drop-outs eventually earn a diploma, giving a net drop-out rate of 20 percent.(3) This means that one in five students who begin the secondary program never earn the secondary school diploma.

Compared to the past and to other countries, this drop-out rate is not high: it is far lower than it has ever been, in fact, and represents a real and substantial success story. Over the past century, the definition of an adequate general education for all students has expanded from an elementary education to one that encompasses secondary school. It is only in the last 50 years or so that society has assumed that all students ought to earn a high school diploma; until recently, we acted on the belief that a Grade 8 - and, later, a Grade 10 general education - was sufficient for all but the university-bound.

As recently as the 1950s, it was expected that most students would leave school after Grade 10, and indeed drop-outs were a majority, not a minority, in those days. To a large extent, that attitude still prevails in many countries outside North America, where the drop-out rate is much higher, but where, in many cases, those not bound for university move into apprenticeship training that may include some continuing general education. It is only in comparison to the United States (and, now, Japan) that our drop-out rate is high.

Whether or not educating four out of five young Ontarians to the level of the secondary diploma is adequate is a matter of values. Increasingly, people have come to think of the diploma as a kind of rite of passage and a basic document of full citizenship - but it certainly has not always been so.

Because we tend to equate education with schooling, to a greater degree than may be true in some other countries, there is significant stigma attached to the lack of the diploma.

As well, because we (like the Americans) have never developed a strong apprenticeship system that brings together the education and training systems, we treat young people who leave school as being on their own when it comes to finding employment; that being so, we are reluctant to see them leave at age 16 or 17, without earning a diploma, knowing how difficult it will be for them to find living-wage jobs that offer opportunities for growth and advancement over time.

But it is very important to appreciate that the drop-out rate is by no means uniform or uniformly low across groups. In a heterogeneous society like ours, non-completion rates reflect the same problems of inequity as does streaming students in secondary school. Drop-outs, including students taking general- and basic-level courses (who, as we have seen, make up far more than their fair share of drop-outs) are much more likely than advanced-course students or graduates to come from lower-income homes, to be the children of parents who have relatively little formal education or who are recent immigrants, to come from single-parent homes, and to come from certain racial and linguistic groups - aboriginals, blacks, and Portuguese, among them.

In fact, a 25-year longitudinal study of students in Toronto shows that the drop-out rate among the children of working-class and poor people is double that of children from better-off families: two-thirds of the working-class and poor children drop out, compared to one-third of those from better-off families.(4)

It was in response to these inequities, more than to the total number of drop-outs, that in 1987 George Radwanski recommended that all secondary students enrol in the same courses - that there be just one level of difficulty, or stream.(5) His argument rests on the historically accurate observation that, as long as there are different streams, students from less advantaged circumstances, or students who are handicapped by unfair assumptions and social and racial bias, will always be disproportionately represented in the least demanding courses, and will obtain a lower quality and quantity of formal education, to their long-term economic and social disadvantage.

He offers abundant evidence to show that these disparities are not primarily related to differences in students' ability to learn, but to such non-academic factors as family income and parental education level. (The 25-year longitudinal study also found that the stream or level in which the student was placed bore more relation to that student's subsequent academic success, or lack thereof, than did measured intelligence or elementary school marks.(6)

In response to the points in the Radwanski report and to other similar arguments, the Ministry of Education began to seriously consider destreaming high schools. But it was clear they would not accept Radwanski's recommendation "that the current policy of streaming high school students into academic, general, and basic courses of study be abolished, and replaced by provision of a single and undifferentiated high-quality educational stream for all students." Instead, the Ministry indicated an interest in the possible destreaming of the first and second years of secondary school, Grades 9 and 10. This division fitted the existing pattern of curriculum guidelines, which defined Grades 7 through 10 as the intermediate division, and 11 to OAC as the senior division.

It would also bring Ontario into line with other Canadian provinces, most of which begin streaming students after Grade 9. (British Columbia and Quebec begin doing so after Grade 10.)

The recommendation brought a negative response from many secondary teachers, from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), from many secondary students, from the Ontario Secondary School Students Association, from much of the university community, and from many parents of students in the advanced-level stream. The teachers took the position that homogeneous grouping was bound to be a disadvantage to both the most and the least able students; although our understanding of the research is that it does not support that position,(7) many teachers continue to adhere to it. Like the teachers, many parents of students who were or would be in the advanced programs felt that their children would be at a disadvantage and "held back" in more heterogeneous classes. There was also some opposition from a much smaller number of parents of children who were in basic-level vocational schools that, the parents considered, were offering their children a coherent alternative.

In the face of this opposition, the Ministry proceeded with the destreaming of Grade 9 only, and gave schools three school years, from September 1993 to June 1996, to complete this change. By the time we held public hearings, and throughout the lifetime of this Commission, considerable opposition to destreaming continued to be heard, but response was mixed, and there were an increasing number of reports about schools and teachers who felt they were making a success of the destreamed Grade 9 program.

In 1993, when schools began implementing Grade 9 destreaming, they had a new curriculum outline to follow. In what is referred to as the "destreaming" and "decrediting" of Grade 9, the Ministry of Education and Training, through The Common Curriculum, Grades 1-9, made Grade 9 part of the common curriculum. No distinction is made between the curriculum of Grade 9 and Grades 7 or 8; the learner outcomes that define the core curriculum are aggregated in three-year groups, and stated in terms of the final year: "By the end of Grade 6" and "By the end of Grade 9," students will have achieved certain results. Thus, Grades 7 to 9 are treated as a three-year block, in terms of common curriculum and learner outcomes.

By including Grade 9, The Common Curriculum left the remaining school years undefined. Because of the lack of new directions, schools and teachers are operating under the old rules (although some interim decisions had to be made for the students who are in Grade 10 in 1994-95).

In fact, the Ministry of Education and Training had begun the process of re-examining the secondary school curriculum before The Common Curriculum document was published; it abandoned the process when the Royal Commission on Learning was established, making secondary school restructuring, by default, part of our work.

The process of consultation begun by the Ministry focused on a number of issues, including the status of Grade 10 (credits and streams or neither); the definition of a credit and use of fractional credits; school size; retaining students in school; life skills and social issues in the curriculum; career planning; curriculum guidelines; learner outcomes; and others. Equity issues were also a focus, as well as the education of adult and immigrant students. Information is available on responses to the consultation, most of which came from educators, but no action has been taken on any of these matters.

Therefore, while The Common Curriculum has redefined the elementary curriculum over the past two years, that has not happened in relation to the secondary curriculum (which now begins in Grade 10). For that reason, we propose a number of significant changes to the way the curriculum that follows the common curriculum is organized; we call it the specialized curriculum. Because we see curriculum as a continuum, rather than as a dichotomy, instead of referring to an elementary and a secondary curriculum, we prefer to think in terms of a common core curriculum from Grades 1 to 9 (which includes some options for local specialization) and a specialized curriculum after Grade 9, which nonetheless has considerable room for common courses.

Based on careful consideration of what we heard and have read about change in general and destreaming in particular, we have decided not to recommend the extension of the common curriculum to the end of Grade 10, as has often been proposed. We note that many educators have found the decision to destream Grade 9 traumatic, and they told us they feel beleaguered by the pace of educational change and reform in the last decade: they have not had time to implement one change before another is upon them. We are convinced, both by what we have read and by what some teachers and principals told us, that a common core curriculum could be offered through Grade 10, as is done in British Columbia and Quebec, but do not recommend that it be done in Ontario at present.

Suggestions for reorganizing the secondary school

The Duration

The most common form of school organization in Europe, Asia, and most of North America involves six years of elementary school, three of middle school, and three years of secondary school. Most students complete their final year of school in the year they turn 18; by contrast, students in Ontario have four years of secondary school after Grade 9, and most are 19 when they graduate. While the government has long intended to reduce secondary school by one year, to bring Ontario's structure into line with almost all other Canadian provinces and most other jurisdictions, the majority of our students take a half to a full year longer to graduate. Fewer than four in ten finish in four years, according to recent data. Most typically, university-bound students studying their OACs (Ontario Academic Credits, taken in the final one to two years of secondary school, and required for university admission in Ontario) prolong their graduation in order to repeat courses and raise their average. Even students who would like to finish in four years are sometimes thwarted by inflexible timetables, while others simply wish to take additional courses in which they are interested.

In principle, the Commission is committed to the idea that some students will take longer than others to complete a course, and that this kind of variability is preferable to the alternatives, which include lowering standards or punishing students with non-productive solutions such as repeating a grade; or, at the other end, forcing them to move more slowly than they are able.

But we are conscious that no other jurisdiction in Canada, and few anywhere in the world, allocate more than three years to secondary education, or more than twelve years to the compulsory education system. There is no evidence that the result is superior performance in university, as compared to students who spend only four in secondary school.

We concur with earlier commissions that have recommended that the fifth year of secondary education, or of education after Grade 8, be eliminated in Ontario, and that, starting in Grade 10, the program be defined as being three years in duration, regardless of the student's post-secondary destination, with the understanding that students may remain in school until they receive their diploma.

Having said that, we wish to discourage this practice, and reduce public expense by capping the number of course credits that can be obtained before automatic graduation, to ensure that the specialized curriculum is completed in three years. Thus we are recommending that a maximum number of credits (including any and all mandatory courses) be permitted, after which students will automatically receive their diploma, and will not be permitted to take further courses.

Under the present rules, simply prescribing the maximum (as well as the minimum) number of credits for graduation will not solve the problem. We reiterate: one of the principal reasons some students remain in secondary school longer than four years is that they are repeating courses, usually OACs, in order to improve their average, because universities typically base entrance requirements on a particular average in six OACs. At present, course repetitions do not show on the student's record; if they did, universities and colleges could, and almost surely would, choose the student whose 90 in English represented the first try, rather than the second.

Similarly, when a student fails a course, that failure does not appear on the Ontario Student Record; this lack of documentation also acts as a disincentive to students to make the maximum effort needed to pass the first time.

Some students take extra courses because they have changed their mind about the direction they want to take in future. While this will always be the case, we expect the emphasis on career awareness and career and educational planning that we are recommending - beginning in the early years, with explicit educational and career planning beginning in Grade 7, using and continually updating the Cumulative Educational Profile, and the student's on-going relationship with the teacher-advisor - will result in fewer changes and a reduction in the resulting need to make up courses.

Another reason secondary school careers are prolonged is that students are permitted, until quite late, to drop courses in which they have enrolled. Many do so after the mid-term exam, if they have received low marks. This accounts in part for the popularity of semestered courses: a student can drop a course in December and pick up a new one in January. One result is that each January many students change to semestered schools in order to begin new courses, having abandoned the course or courses they began the previous September at a non-semestered school. While it is reasonable to permit students to change their mind about a course after only one or two classes, it is not reasonable, in our opinion, to make it easy to abandon most of a semester's work - or lack thereof.

Repeating or dropping courses months after they begin is not productive, is not about learning, and requires unnecessary public expenditures. By removing any consequences for repeating and abandoning courses, and getting lower-than-desired marks, the system encourages an attitude that prolongs dependence, and that values success, however gained, but does not value effort.

Recommendation 16

*We recommend that secondary school be defined as a three-year program, beginning after Grade 9, and that students be permitted to take a maximum of three courses beyond the required 21, for a total of not more than 24 credits. We further recommend that all courses in which the student has enrolled - whether completed or incomplete, passed or failed - be recorded on that student's transcript.

It should be clear that we are not trying to make things more difficult for students who have legitimate reasons for taking time out of their secondary careers, or who take fewer than seven or eight courses per year. Those who must work part-time, who are caring for young children, who cannot cope successfully with a full load of courses, or who have other obligations that prevent them from finishing the specialized curriculum in three years, will not be penalized: we are not restricting the length of time students may take to finish the equivalent of three years of full-time schooling.

What should be limited, in our view, is the number of courses they can take, not the length of time in which they complete them.

Curriculum organization

Problems

In virtually every country, students are streamed in secondary school. Typically, there is an academic or university-bound route, a technology route (which may or may not lead to some form of higher education), and a vocational route, which goes no further. In many countries, streaming begins earlier than in most of Canada; in some, it begins later.

As previously mentioned, Ontario's secondary school courses are offered at three levels of difficulty or what are often referred to as streams: basic, general, and advanced. Students leaving Grade 9 (previously, Grade 8) choose the level at which they will take most of their courses. This choice is often strongly influenced by teachers and guidance counsellors; parents may or may not be involved in making the decision, but must consent in writing.

The rationale for different levels or streams is that, by the time they reach secondary school, students differ so greatly, in terms of previous achievement (and, it is often presumed, in basic ability) they cannot reasonably learn and be taught together. (Research at the Grade 9 level, as we mentioned earlier, is not supportive of this idea.) It is assumed that the best-prepared and brightest students will be held back, and the least-prepared and slowest students will fall behind and fail. In theory, segregating students by program means that the distribution of marks within each of the three programs will be the same, because, once they have been appropriately placed, students will be competing at their appropriate level, and, relative to their classmates, will have the same opportunity to excel, no matter the level at which they are working.

In fact, this is not the case. There is abundant evidence that the marks of students in the general-level courses (math, English, etc.) are considerably lower overall than those of students in advanced-level courses. Furthermore, their failure rate is much higher: for example, in a 1992 sample of 60 schools, 15.6 percent of general-level Grade 10 English students failed their course, compared with 6.5 percent who failed it at the advanced level.(8) Coupled with the fact that the drop-out rate is much higher among students in general- and basic-level programs, these data clearly indicate that streamed programs do not accomplish what they are supposed to do: to equalize opportunities for high achievement across levels.

Observations of classroom procedures and course content, both in Ontario and elsewhere, consistently show lower expectations of students (for example, little or no homework is assigned) and lower motivation on the part of teachers in non-university preparatory, or non-advanced-level courses. Rather than being organized differently or having a different emphasis on content that meets the needs of different kinds of learners, or learners with different interests, most observers find these classes "watered-down" versions of those at the advanced level.(9)

In principle, a student may take courses at different levels. For example, she might take advanced-level math classes but general-level French classes. In practice, however, most students take most courses at the same level. This practice is so widespread that many schools, especially in urban areas, offer only one level of course across all subjects, on the assumption that this arrangement will accommodate most students' needs. Thus, we have basic-level schools, or collegiates that offer only advanced-level courses, making no allowance for possible differences in talent and ability by subject rather than by student.

Perhaps the greatest problem with the existing system is that it succeeds for only a minority of students, if we take success to mean that they meet their stated goals. As mentioned earlier, two-thirds of students choose advanced-level courses, because they hope to be eligible for university. But universities can and do accommodate fewer than half that number; in other words, the majority of students who aspire to university will not get there.

Low or failing marks given in the required first- and second-year secondary school courses (most notably in mathematics) function to screen out large numbers of students. Much higher proportions of students in advanced-level courses receive marks in the 50s and 60s than in the 80s or 90s in courses required for university. In other words, the marking curves are not normal or bell-shaped. But this is not true of several of the non-sorting courses - such as physical education, drama, and music.(10) While most of these screened-out students do not realize or acknowledge, until their last or second-last year, that they will not get into university, their fate is quite predictable, based on the number of credits they acquire by the end of their first high school year. Almost all students try eight, or at least seven courses; those who have fewer than six passes will almost certainly be among the majority of advanced-level students who do not complete six OACs with marks that will gain them admittance to university.

Unless universities double their admission rates - which seems highly unlikely - many students need a better option than they have. The issue is not the level of sophistication, or the content of advanced-level courses, but that the idea of a university education is so attractive.

While that attraction is not likely to lessen, it is very important to attempt to provide an attractive and realistic alternative - not just a weaker version of similar courses that reach toward no particular goal.

It is true, of course, that the problem is deep-seated in a culture that values and rewards academic and professional skills more than applied skills. In spite of the fact that we lament the lack of skilled craftspeople, and despite our chronic dependence on immigrants with these skills, we do not pay or honour skilled workers as we do those who have a university degree and professional training.

University is the gateway to higher earnings and status, and is likely to remain so. We tend to equate general intelligence with academic intelligence, so that academic success and academic credentials become the major evidence of individual excellence and employability. As a consequence, courses or course sequences that do not lead to university eligibility will probably remain less desirable.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of students choose, and are likely to continue to choose, the pre-university program even though it is perfectly clear that most will not be admitted to university after they complete secondary school.

Strategies

Notwithstanding the apparent difficulties, we are convinced that it is possible to fashion more successful alternatives that will help lower the number of students who leave school without a diploma, and will increase the percentage who attend college. At present, about 30 percent of secondary school students leave without a diploma (although one-third of those eventually earn it); about 25 percent go directly to university; about 20 percent go directly to college; a small percentage go to other post-secondary institutions; and about 20 percent go directly to work (although half of these people later attend university or college).

A more successful set of options in secondary school might be expected to increase the percentage of students who go directly to college, increase the school-directly-to-work stream somewhat, and cut very substantially the number of students who leave school without a diploma. No matter how the curriculum is altered, there can be little doubt that students from disadvantaged homes and neighbourhoods will continue to be under-represented among those admitted to university. But a more successful multi-stream system should enable more of them to complete their diploma - which, in itself, is a measure of increasing equity. As well, better links with colleges increase the likelihood that more working-class and minority students will obtain some post-secondary education, a considerable asset in terms of employment and income opportunities.

The success of any attempt to provide a workable and attractive alternative to pre-university education depends, in part, on the amount and quality of career education and awareness that has been built into students' experience before they have to make a choice.

Students who are aware of a wide variety of career opportunities, many of which do not hinge on university education, are much more likely to choose from among a wider range of options.

We agree that it is not sufficient to offer only one program in secondary school; because students have different experiences, interests, and aptitudes, and are eager to make choices, we are not proposing that students should take exactly the same array of courses, all taught at a single level of difficulty. At the same time however, we do not believe that it is necessary to offer courses at three levels, or to specify a particular level of difficulty or stream for every course offered. Nor do we think it is necessary or useful for students to feel obliged to take all or almost all their courses at one particular level of difficulty, rather than making distinctions in response to their own interests and strengths.

Therefore, we recommend three major changes to the way secondary school courses are now being offered and sequenced:

Recommendation 17

*We recommend that only two, not three, differentiated types of courses should exist.

While our conception of these two levels is that they should differ in emphasis between a more academic and a more applied approach to learning, we understand that, in the minds of most people familiar with the current jargon, the two will be likened to the current advanced and general levels.

Using that terminology, we would have to say that the third level - - the one we recommend be dropped - is the present basic level. We recognize that there is a small group of students - at least 5 percent - who learn more slowly and do need extra assistance. But we think that it makes no sense to create a special set of courses or a program for these students - a program that, at present, almost four-fifths of them do not complete.

In our view, it is preferable to make extra support available to these students, in the form of individual tutoring by teachers, teaching assistants, and/or senior student-tutors; as well, they should be given extra time to complete courses. The principle of increased flexibility in course completion time - both to permit acceleration and to accommodate slower learners and learners with other demands on their time - is very important to us, and is discussed at several points throughout this and the preceding and following chapters.

Recommendation 18

*We recommend that some courses, (to be called Ontario Academic Courses, or OAcCs) be offered with an academic emphasis; that others (to be called Ontario Applied Courses, or OApCs) be offered, with an emphasis on application; and that still others be presented as common courses, blending academic and applied approaches, and with no special designation.

We recognize that one of the ways that people of all ages differ in their approach to learning is the degree to which they look for practicality, relevance, and applicability in what they are learning. While we are convinced that many students in elementary and secondary school - perhaps the great majority - are more motivated when their teachers help them see a connection between what they study and the rest of their world, we recognize that making this connection is more essential for some learners than for others. For those whose interests tend to be more technical and hands-on, courses in such subjects as English/francais, mathematics, and the physical and social sciences, need to differ, not in the level of skill required, but in kinds of problems presented, and the use to which the content and concepts are put.

Take English/francais as an example: all students must have a command of correct and conventional language, spoken and written, and, by the senior years of school, must be able to comprehend texts at an adult level. But some students want to read for information about topics that directly interest them - perhaps in science or in politics - while others want to read fictional and non-fictional literature as a source of ideas and themes about history and human nature.

But the student with the more practical approach to literature may have the more academic interest in science: differences exist not only among learners, but in the way that each learner approaches each subject. Someone with a strong interest in the humanities, for example, may be intrigued by aesthetics and motivated to study literature or art as a foundation of ideas and wisdom, without looking for obvious or immediately practical applications for what is being learned. But the same student may have little interest in mathematics unless its application is made very clear.

Consequently, we want schools to offer courses that meet the needs, not of two distinct kinds of students, but for two different emphases in course content, understanding that some students will prefer to select most of their courses as either OAcCs or OApCs, but not both; while other students will be more eclectic.

While we have no illusions about the likelihood of solving all problems or satisfying all stakeholders, we propose to change the nature of the secondary school course offerings and requirements into something that, we are persuaded, would be both more efficient and more realistic. (See Figure 2 on next page.) We want students to have the opportunity to focus on what interests them, and what will bring some coherence and a sense of purposefulness to their secondary school program.

Rather than dividing courses into different levels of difficulty, which then create streams or programs (of which only the advanced-level/OAC/university has a clear purpose and destination), we recommend that a number of programs be created. By these we don't mean streams, but rather packages of courses organized around such subject or career areas as math/science/technology, health-related occupations, communications, international languages, and finance. As well, the four integrated subject areas on which The Common Curriculum is built (math/science/tech, the arts, self and society, language/literature) offer one possible organizing principle for clusters of courses, or academies. We envision students who have a particular interest or goal (environmental science, for example, or a college diploma course in early childhood education), with the help of their advisor, constructing a program which might include one or several academic, applied, and common courses each year, each of which would make sense as part of a package of courses supporting that interest and/or goal.

Some models currently exist in secondary schools for students who want to specialize; there are a few arts academies, for example. The current "business studies endorsement" and "tech studies endorsement" are secondary-level certificates that recognize a concentration of at least eight courses in those areas. In some jurisdictions outside Ontario, the variety of career academy models includes, in addition to the arts, health sciences, communications, etc. All of these options tend to make secondary programming more coherent, meaningful, and attractive to students.

In Chapter 8, in the context of a discussion of the needs of young adolescents in middle and junior high schools, we explained our preference for smaller schools, in which adolescents have a better chance of knowing and being known by their teachers and their peers, and are much less likely to feel alienated or to be simply a face in the crowd. We recommended that the Ministry and local boards encourage and provide incentives to schools that wish to reorganize themselves to create smaller learning units.

Secondary schools are usually the largest of the school units not uncommonly including well over a thousand students. Hence our concern for creating smaller communities for students is especially applicable at the secondary level. Furthermore, there is another advantage to the small school at this level: given that most secondary schools in Ontario are large, and that the small units can only be achieved by creating "schools-within-schools" or "houses," in which two or more such units share a large building and its major facilities such as labs, library, gymnasium, and cafeteria, it follows that the small schools within the large shared building could also specialize by subject or topic. One school building could, for example, contain four discrete schools, one an arts academy, one organized around the health sciences and allied disciplines, a third devoted to international languages, and a fourth with an emphasis on social sciences and helping professions. Students might take some courses outside of their "school" but within the same building; but they would choose the "school" or "house" that best represents their main interest.

Schools like this are somewhat analogous to the alternative schools in some municipalities, which are deliberately small, focus on a particular program, and draw teachers and students who want to be part of that program.

Both because smaller learning units support stronger bonds between teachers and students and between students and students, and because they offer the potential to support the kind of interest-focused curriculum packages that represent a degree of specialization, we believe such smaller learning units are productive for students of this age.

Recommendation 19

*We recommend that large secondary schools be reorganized into "schools-within-schools" or "houses," in which students have a core of teachers and peers with whom they interact for a substantial part of their program. Such units may be topic-, discipline-, or interest-focused.

At the same time that we expect programs with a significant degree of specialization and focus to be attractive to all students, we recognize the necessity of involving universities and colleges in organizing and structuring various programs and program options, as a way of marking out paths to post-secondary education. A locally developed model for programming of this kind is the school/college articulation program, which has blossomed in recent years: high school students take courses that lead directly to placement in specific college programs. For example, Seneca College and the Etobicoke Board of Education have signed an articulation agreement that gives students who complete a secondary school course, Seniors in Society, advanced standing in the first year of Seneca's Social Services Worker Gerontology Program.

While students take Seniors in Society, they are also learning about and negotiating the admissions requirements for Seneca's program - should they decide to apply to it. This specific articulation agreement is another example of the generic model we favour, in which school and post-secondary institution jointly define a program that is continuous and cumulative; nonetheless, we believe that it may be too specific to become a general pattern.

While some colleges are involved in very specific articulation programs, as a sector they have not joined with the secondary school sector to plan centrally for secondary-post-secondary continuity in the same way universities have. The opposite is true for universities: there is a single program, the advanced-level/OAC sequence, that clearly leads to the possibility of university application and admission but makes no distinction between subjects students intend to pursue and those they do not. The university sequence could be improved by being made less global and general, as well as more plural and interest-focused. In other words, we need university packages, not a university stream. The college sequences could be improved by being made less specific and more comprehensive. In other words, we need some college packages, not dozens or hundreds of articulation agreements.

We believe that, just as there are now certain courses students must take if they aspire to university, in future there should be equally well-defined requirements for college application and admission. We are not proposing that, as is now the case, courses recognized by universities be totally distinct from all others.

We do not propose that the university-bound student be obliged to take OAcCs only, or that the one planning to go to college take OApCs exclusively. Instead, we suggest that the particular combination of OAcCs and OApCs required for admission to various programs and major areas of study at colleges and universities should depend on decisions made by those bodies working with secondary school educators, and organized by and responsible to the Ministry of Education and Training.

For example, a student who wants to attend a university's engineering faculty might be required to take a set of math/science/technology courses, all of which are OAcCs, and might take the other subjects - English, social sciences, arts as OApCs. A student whose goal is the electronics technology program in a college might have to take some, but not all, math and technology courses as OAcCs, but the science courses, as well as those in arts and humanities courses, could be OApCs. A third student, interested in a college's program for technicians, might take all courses as OApCs.

While we are aware that this plan does not provide a specific set of programs tailored for students who do not go on to post-secondary education, we believe that, for several reasons, the structure is a benefit for them as well: first, there is growing consensus that, increasingly, students who do not have any post-secondary education or training will be at an economic disadvantage; this convinces us that it is unwise to create dead-end secondary programs. Second, many students - about half, in fact - who do not immediately go on to post-secondary education after secondary school do so eventually; being prepared for a post-secondary program can only facilitate that later transition. Finally, a coherent, practical, interest-focused program should make schools more attractive and help them retain students, irrespective of their future plans.

There is little purpose in staying in school if the program has no shape and no destination; if it has both, it should encourage more students to stay to completion and to continue on.

Our idea is that all students should be treated alike when it comes to organizing their curriculum after the common core curriculum is finished at the end of Grade 9. All students, we think, would benefit from, and be motivated by, a degree of coherence that comes from greater specialization. We also believe that a good, common education to the end of Grade 9, built on strong foundation skills, on early and continuous career awareness, on a community-work experience program, as well as on excellent career counselling will mean that 15-year-olds are ready and eager to focus on their interests and strengths, without having to sacrifice a good general education.

We believe, as well, that this good general education can and should continue within the more specialized curriculum after Grade 9. That principle is embedded in our proposal in two ways: first, we are suggesting that many courses be offered, not as OAcCs or OApCs, but in one form only, without special designation. Such courses as family studies, physical education, life skills, drama, visual arts, and most business courses can be offered in this single, common way. The only courses that should take the form of OAcCs or OApCs are those required by universities and colleges for admission to particular programs. These would probably include English/francais, mathematics, science, French/anglais, history, as well as geography and some business and technology courses. But the final decision on this would be left to the post-secondary educators, working with secondary educators.

We have recommended that courses in subjects important to university or college admission be offered in two forms OAcC/OApC - and that other courses be offered in one form only. Although specific requirements must be worked out between universities, colleges, and the secondary education section, we believe the guiding principle should be that students should be required to take courses in a particular one of the two forms, rather than being able to choose freely between them, only when they are specializing in a particular subject or career area.

Our second mechanism for ensuring that students continue to acquire a general, liberal education even while they specialize in an area of interest is to require that all students take a number of mandatory courses, as is the case at present.

We are particularly concerned that no student graduate without adult literacy skills. Therefore, we have chosen to make such literacy a requirement for the diploma. (See Chapter 11.) In addition, we are certain that all graduates should have a solid basis of knowledge of Canadian and world history and literature, but are concerned that not all do at present.

While we are certain that decisions concerning exactly what courses should be required of all students must be based on clearly defined learner outcomes for the end of Grade 12, these outcomes do not yet exist. Nonetheless, we offer as one reasonable model the following list of 14 courses to be required of all students within the 21 credits (Grades 10-12) required for the diploma:*

• 3 English/communications (or francais) credits
• 2 math credits
• 2 science credits
• 1 Canadian history credit
• 1 geography or social science credit
• 1 arts or physical education credit
• 2 language credits (French/anglais and/or one other international language)
• 1 life skills credit, with modules in career education, community service, violence prevention, anti-racism, media literacy, and personal/financial management (These modules could also be offered within the English or mathematics curricula)
• 1 business studies or technological studies credit

* At the request of a parent or student, up to two exemption/substitutions could be made, as is presently the case.

In addition, we recommend two mandatory diploma requirements (credit or non-credit) for all students.

Recommendations 20, 21

*First, we recommend that they participate in physical exercise at least three times per week, for not less than 30 minutes per session, either in or outside physical education classes.

*Second, we recommend that they take part in a minimum of 20 hours per year (two hours per month) of community service, facilitated and monitored by the school, to take place outside or inside the school.

(Examples of the latter include peer and cross-age tutoring.)

All students, we believe, should also be given, and be expected to use, generous opportunities to participate in work- and career-related learning activities in and out of school, which will be integrated into the curriculum. Both the community service and the work- and career-related activities should be included in the student's Cumulative Educational Profile (CEP).

Finally, we believe that reorganizing curriculum into programs that are topic- and interest-focused will have a healthy effect on informally reorganizing staff. Many educators told us, and local research also suggests, that, as a result of the system of departmental affiliation of secondary teachers, there is a lack of communication across subject boundaries - "Balkanization" which is aggravated by the large size of secondary schools.(11) This failure to integrate staff has sometimes been reflected in an exaggerated and artificial segregation of curriculum, preventing connections from being made that would enrich the coherence and importance of a student's total learning experience during a given year or semester.

While smaller learning units - our schools-within-schools - will help to break down these walls, so will interdisciplinary programs that bring subjects and, therefore, teachers together. If math, science, English, and art teachers are part of a communications academy, they will, of necessity, find themselves working together to present a reasoned sequence of courses over the three years. While each teacher may maintain her departmental affiliation, she is very likely to find herself spending as much time with teachers from other departments. We believe this shift would be to the great benefit of students as well as of teachers, whose continuing education depends so much on their professional interchanges with colleagues. (See the section on department heads in Chapter 12, for further discussion of the issue of staffing and staff functioning.)

Flexibility

As we said earlier, we are concerned about the present inflexibility in force in almost all secondary schools: all courses are offered in units of equal length, and every student has exactly the same length of time as every other in which to complete a course - no more and no less. We have seen some powerfully persuasive examples of flexibility in secondary schools, and we want to see them become more wide-spread. One way is to design units or modules, either within courses of the traditional length (one semester or one year), or as partial credits in themselves. In either case, the idea is that students could progress through a sequence of modules at different paces, with those needing more support able to get it, and those capable of accelerating doing so.

Another form of acceleration is by prior learning assessment: to the extent that courses are broken into modules, or that partial credits are offered, it becomes increasingly plausible to give students the option of "testing out" through a challenge exam and moving to a higher level. We have no doubt that, for example, there are students sitting through much of Grade 10 math who are quite able to do Grade 11 math or do the second half of Grade 10 math in September of their Grade 10 year. (Below, in the section "International languages," we speak of the challenge exam as applied to international languages, and in Chapter 10 we address this issue more generally.)

At the same time, many students fail Grade 10 math unnecessarily: some may need 12 or 14, not 10 months to complete the course, and may need extra support in one-on-one or small groups, with a teacher or perhaps with a senior student tutor. But these youngsters should not have to finish in 10 months or fail and invest a second 10 months in the same material, much of which they already know. Instead, they need flexibility of time to complete the work, and immediate remediation - a little help when they need it, not a lot of help when it is much too late.

While most courses have not been developed in modular form, teachers need not necessarily start from scratch to redefine curriculum that way. One resource - not well known but readily available - is the long list of courses developed as independent learning packages by the Independent Learning Centre of the Ministry of Education and Training. Although most ILC students are adults, there are several thousand day-school students every year who acquire credits independently by completing ILC courses. In some, but not all cases, the students are using the ILC as a distance education resource. But the materials used for ILC courses are certainly readily available to teachers who want models for work that is broken into smaller units and done at the individual's own pace. We also expect that increased availability of computers and interactive videos will make individualization of materials more attractive and more effective.

Summer and night schools are other possibilities for students who want to accelerate or to catch up. But, like day-school courses, those being taught at night or in the summer are of uniform length and occupy a pre-established number of classroom hours. One intriguing possibility related to the idea of the year-round school is to make summer an optional learning extension period, for the student who wants to spend longer than the usual number of days and weeks to complete a course begun in the fall, winter, or spring.

Another way to give students flexibility, both in what they learn and how they learn it, is through a study or project that is independent of any course. Although this can be done within current guidelines, it is rarely presented to students as an option. Students can be encouraged to discuss an idea with a teacher - any teacher - and work out a plan or contract. Any teacher, depending on interests and expertise, can act as a resource for a student. Students who work in this manner have the opportunity to further develop invaluable skills related to time management and self-discipline.

Recommendation 22

*We recommend that the same efforts to centrally develop strategies and ideas for increasing flexibility and individualization of the pace of learning, which we called for in the common core curriculum, be applied to the specialization years.

The other important kind of flexibility is that which exists between programs. If a student changes her mind about her interests, or about going to college or university, program requirements should not be so rigid as to discourage her. Our recommendations make it possible to achieve flexibility in two ways: first, because many courses would be available in only one form, the issue of differences between programs would be minimized: if she chooses drama - whether she is taking courses in applied arts, communications, or humanities, or intends to apply to university or college - it would be the same course. Second, by encouraging challenge exams and prior learning assessment, students would be able, on the basis of tests, to move beyond content they already have mastered and to enter that course, either in a class setting or on an individualized basis, at the point where they qualify, or, in some cases, be excused from the whole course or most of it. This would cover any course and any student, regardless of the program in which she had been specializing. If, for example, a student had completed the Grade 10 English OApC and wished to take Grade ll English OAcC, she could do so after passing the Grade 10 English OAcC exam.

Curriculum content

Basic requirements

We want to build a secondary program that rests on high standards, rigour, and continuity of general education and the opportunity for specialization. We want all students to be able to choose a program based on their interests and aptitudes, in which links are made between academics and applications, and between school and working-and-learning settings outside school.

We have described a three-year secondary program, beginning after Grade 9, with 21 course credits required for graduation. Some of these will be offered in only one format; others will be available in OAcC and OApC configurations.

While all students are likely to experience a mix of academic and applied learning, the balance between the two programs will differ somewhat. For example, we intend that the number and intensity of workplace and in-school work-related experiences job-shadowing, co-operative education, and other worksite learning opportunities - - would increase substantially in all courses, and that curricular emphasis would be on in-class practical applications of knowledge. But more time would be spent in these learning contexts in OApC than in OAcC courses; for example, while all students would take English/communications courses, which would contain components of both conventional literature and technical literature, the balance between those two would certainly differ in OAcC and OApC courses.

The goal would be to ensure that, no matter what courses students took, they would be well prepared for the Grade 11 literacy examination. (See Chapter 11.)

We believe it is very important that the most advanced OAcC and OApC course in each subject area should have a common core, across all schools; it should be significant enough to give students some guarantee of consistency of both content and evaluation standards, as well as providing reliability in what is taught and learned in courses that have a major impact on admission to college or university.

To accomplish this, we propose that an existing process, the Ontario Academic Credit/Teacher-Inservice-Program (OAC/TIP), be expanded and improved. OAC/TIP involves secondary and university educators working together to evaluate the final examinations set by teachers across the province in each last-year academic (OAC) course, the quality of student response, and the standard being applied, as reflected in teachers' evaluations and marks. Teachers from the two levels look at actual sets of exams, and arrive at agreement about standards.

At present, this process applies only to those final-year academic courses; we are proposing that it expand to include final-year OApCs as well as OAcCs, because we believe that standards of excellence are equally important in both course types. It would be necessary to involve college as well as university teachers in this process, and both groups more prominently than the university sector is currently involved. If the process were implemented and monitored seriously, and involved college educators for the new OApCs, with a now-absent emphasis on public reporting and accountability, consistency would be achieved while building teacher capability in assessment. Chapter 11 includes our specific recommendation for expanding the examination review process for final-year courses, to be certain that all courses are included, and that the cyclical review schedule for subjects is accelerated, so that reviews are more frequent.

In order to implement this curriculum, major efforts are required: first, new course groupings, or programs, must be developed by schools, colleges, and universities, working toward better articulation for students. Second, many course guidelines will have to be rewritten. Currently, for example, there is little emphasis on technical writing in any English class, and too little emphasis on application in most mathematics and science courses. At present, these applied but challenging math and English courses do not exist in most schools. And the common courses - the drama, family studies, and other courses offered in only one format - must reflect a good balance between academic and applied skills and experiences, to cater to all students.

In order to offer common courses within a variety of interest-based programs, it is necessary to agree on the intended outcomes of each course. Thus, the drama course may have quite different content and applicability if it is being offered in a communications program rather than a health sciences program; but there must be a common set of outcomes that apply to drama in both (and many other) programs. For example, we may expect all drama students to show an increased ability to understand and portray a range of human feelings, although the dramatic situations and roles in which they develop and exhibit this ability will differ in content. As long as curriculum guidelines are developed that specify what students are expected to learn and know, curriculum designers and teachers will be able to develop a variety of modules and materials that cover the requirements and connect to the content theme. In so far as this can be done centrally, teachers will not have to develop materials even as they attempt to teach them.

Finally, there must be a very significant increase, for students, in the school/work articulation opportunities, which are severely limited at present by the traditional reluctance of business and labour to become involved in apprenticeship-like activities.

While we strongly believe that all students in all programs need to see a greater connection between school and career, have more experience in work settings, and gain a greater sense of how their course work can be applied outside the classroom, we recognize that students who do not intend to go to university have the greatest need for this connection and emphasis, to give both program and student a sense of purpose and direction.

Given that we have recommended much smaller school units, usually in the form of schools-within-schools, it should be possible for most if not all communities to offer several different kinds of focused programs to attract and engage students with different interests and talents, at the same time they are offered a high-quality core curriculum, regardless of specialization. We think the best way to ensure the latter is through a combination of learner outcomes, standards of performance in foundation skills areas, and example-illustrated curriculum guidelines for each course - in precisely the same way we described the elementary level curriculum.

Recommendation 23

*We recommend that a set of graduation outcomes be developed for the end of Grade 12; that they be subject and skill oriented, as well as relatively brief; and that they cover common learner outcomes for all students as well as supplemental learner outcomes for the OAcC and the OApC programs.

Thus, the curriculum guidelines for Grade 10 Geography, for example, would list: (1) outcomes for all learners, (2) supplemental outcomes for those in the Grade 10 OApC, and (3) supplemental outcomes for those in the Grade 10 OAcC. The first list would be longer than either of the other two.

We strongly suggest that learner outcomes, Grades 1-12, be understood as a continuum, and that the new statements of outcomes developed for the specialization years be created and tested by elementary, secondary, and post-secondary educators, working together. The Ministry of Education and Training must provide leadership, but should draw heavily on expertise from teachers' professional groups, such as subject councils.

The foundation subjects revisited

In our opinion, the subjects we described as the foundation of Grades 1 to 9 should continue to function that way through graduation: all students must continue to enhance their literacies by acquiring knowledge and sophistication in communications, in mathematics, in science, in information technology, and in group learning/life skills. The issues for restructuring in each of these areas are discussed briefly.

The concern of many educators and specialists is that communications, mathematics, and science courses should have more applied emphasis in the specialization years. We agree that all learners would appreciate this emphasis, and want to see all courses connect more to students' realities; in particular, the OApCs we are recommending would be carefully designed to meet this need.

In English/communications, there should be more emphasis, for all students, on universally needed and useful applications, such as writing resumes and reading technical reports. We do not wish to see any student deprived of continuing exposure to the world's great literature; nor is it acceptable for a student to graduate without being able to write a grammatically correct, well-reasoned essay or well-researched paper. But we are equally concerned that practical applications, such as a high level of media and technical literacy, should be part of everyone's education.

In both science and mathematics, the need for a more practical and useful approach to science is equally acute.

We would add that the "broad societal context" focus in science should include an emphasis on ethics and on human and social applications of science. Researchers and advocates concerned with attracting more female students to the sciences often identify this kind of content as being a key to improving both the quality and comprehensiveness of the science curriculum in general, and attracting and keeping more female students in particular.

While science is one avenue for applied mathematics, math courses themselves must be restructured so that they become more useful to students. Most students will not become mathematicians, but they need to know how to use math and to solve problems in the context of life and work. This does not imply any lack of rigor or challenge, only an obligation to prepare students well for what they will need and be able to make use of, whatever their post-secondary destination.

Mathematics educators tell us that

What educators are calling for is an emphasis on problem-solving, application, and understanding - the literacies. They emphasize that fewer "big ideas" well understood and well connected in the mind of the learner are far more important than extensive lists of facts, which will not be remembered.

In the last years of secondary school, science and math remain the areas in which female students lag behind males. Their participation and success rates equal (or exceed) those of male students in elementary and secondary science and math - until the final year courses in physics and calculus.(14) It is at this last step, and in university courses that function as gatekeepers to science and math, that women's participation rates drop off. While there are indications that many female students would particularly like to see more practical and social applications of math and science made explicit throughout the program, their success in spite of the abstract nature of most existing advanced-level math and science courses equals that of their male peers. It would appear that the prospect of continuing in math/science in university is what they find unattractive or forbidding. In recognition of this, some schools, colleges, and universities have co-operated to create transitional and linking programs designed to make university-level science and math more accessible to women.

Of the foundation subjects being revisited in this chapter, none must be upgraded more than information technology: as students come into secondary school with extensive experience in using computers for writing and communicating with others, courses that do not expand the student's skill base - keyboarding for example - will virtually disappear from the curriculum. (In the same way that we do not offer courses in the use of the ordinary phone.)

Students will have extensive experience with word-processing software long before they reach Grade 10, and we can expect to see computer use and skill expand as information is searched and synthesized in increasingly sophisticated ways across most subjects, as well as in specialized arts applications. Networks of computers and the information they make available will also be essential in independent study projects, with the teacher acting as a consultant rather than as the organizer of the material to be learned.

As the emphasis on workplace learning increases substantially in the secondary years, the interpersonal, group learning, organizational, and decision-making skills that have been emphasized since the early years will have obviously broader applications. Students will need guidance and practice in interviewing, and in understanding expectations of employers and fellow workers.

The greater emphasis on applied topics will give students opportunities to practice such essential life skills as preparing resumes and income tax forms, and learning to read technical manuals and labels critically.

Many parents and others concerned with the broader interpersonal education of adolescents commented to us on the need for greater education in parenting. Despite the fact that the transition to parenting is as real, that it may be as imminent, and certainly is as important for high school graduates as the transition to work, most students in the public school system are not exposed to family life education until Grade 7, although it begins in the early grades in Catholic schools; and many do not opt to take family studies courses later, in secondary school, when they might be more useful.

As we become increasingly more concerned about the rising rate of marriage breakdown, the growth in the number of child abuse cases being reported, the fact that more teen mothers are raising babies ("children raising children") than ever before, and alarming rates of family and youth violence, there is a new sense of urgency about the need to offer parenting education to young people. This is perhaps the situation in which community partners must be most active in assisting schools to design and deliver the curriculum, and in promoting non-academic learning of vital interest to the community.

Rather than insisting all students take a non-academic course that some of them, or their parents, do not feel is useful or desirable in secondary school or as part of the curriculum, we suggest it remain optional - that the parenting component within the family studies or life skills course be made well known to students, and that parenting courses in the community be supported by government, and made widely available through childbirth preparation courses, birthing centres, and hospital maternity wards, as well as at public libraries and community centres.

From Grade 10 on, students can and should, for their benefit and that of their peers, be accepting increasing responsibility for organizing and operating support systems in school, including conflict resolution teams, tutoring programs, and peer support groups. Students may need adult assistance in organizing and maintaining these services, but can carry out most operations, in a valuable learning opportunity that offers them a valid way to discharge part of their annual community service obligations. This form of community service, whether at school or in the larger community, is a rich field for developing life skills.

Career education and career counselling

The curriculum we recommend would begin building connections between the school and the community very early, starting with a focus on community and career awareness in ECE/kindergarten, and continuing with a Cumulative Educational Plan (CEP) starting in Grade 7. But it is in the specialized curriculum that actual participation in extended, as well as brief, work experiences occurs, and the crucial links to work, career, and full-time employment are made - whether that employment begins for the learner at age 18 or earlier, or later, after post-secondary education. Starting in Grade 10, serious attention must be given to building links between curriculum and work applications.

We believe that every student should have the opportunity to participate in co-operative education, and in many shorter-term work experience activities, and should be exposed to a variety of career models in the classroom and school programs.

This clearly gives employers, unions, and post-secondary institutions a central role in educating high school students. The need for work settings in all kind of sectors, private and public, for-profit and non-profit, would grow enormously. The success of co-operative education programs, in terms of student, employer, parent, and teacher satisfaction, is considerable. But greater commitment from institutions outside the secondary system is essential if more opportunities are to open up for students.

We urge the Ontario government to explore ways of increasing opportunities for co-operative education and other longer-term on-site work/education placements for secondary students. For example, it might be possible to use tax incentives to recognize investments in training, and to work with organized labour to guarantee that secondary school training programs are not, and are not perceived as, threats to employee security.

Older students, many of whom are close to the transition to work and career, would best be served if all career counselling and information agencies in the community - whether local, provincial, or federal - were accessible to secondary students in a system connected to all sources of information on-site, either electronically or by locating various counselling services in the school.

International languages

In order to encourage students while they are young to learn or maintain a language through the International Languages program or privately, we propose to provide and encourage the use of challenge exams in international languages beginning in Grade 10. A student could take such an exam in the language of her choice, receive a mark that would be equated to a course level (e.g., equivalent to the completion of one credit in Italian, or equivalent to the completion of two credits in Mandarin). This would serve the student in two ways: first, she could, if she wished, receive the equivalent of up to two credits (and we suggest imposing this maximum) toward her diploma. This is now done in Manitoba, where students are offered the opportunity to earn a limited number of credits by exam without actually studying the language in school. The option is available both for languages taught in Manitoba schools as well as those that are not, and is parallel to the existing option in Ontario under which students earn a credit for musical achievement by taking examinations at an approved conservatory of music.

In our opinion, more important than being able to earn credits is the opportunity to qualify for enrolment in a more advanced language course without taking prerequisites, by demonstrating the appropriate level of mastery on the challenge examination. We speak throughout this report of wanting to increase flexibility for students, so that they can spend more or less time on a subject or course, depending on their proficiency and the speed at which they progress. We want the challenge exam option, or its functional equivalent, to be available for students in all subject areas. In the case of international languages the difference is that acceleration may not be possible before Grade 10, because the courses may not be offered until that point.

We hope and expect that if, from Grade 10 on, students were encouraged to take challenge exams in international languages, enrolment in those subjects would increase substantially. While a particular school might not have sufficient numbers to establish a course in every language for which one or more students passed the exam, students could be accommodated, either by having courses delivered in the school building or elsewhere in the community, using interactive video, or individually, through courses offered by the Independent Learning Centre (ILC), an agency of the Ministry of Education and Training. The ILC is also an important resource for developing the challenge exams, and for marking them.

We want to see every effort made to provide instruction, individually or in groups, to those students in Grades 10 to 12 who wish to continue their language studies. As part of that effort and encouragement, the Ministry of Education and Training should support the design and encourage the use of challenge exams in international languages, beginning in Grade 10, for students who wish to earn a limited number of credits in a language other than English or French, whether or not they receive instruction in the school system.

Recommendation 24

*We recommend that students have the option of receiving as many as two international language credits toward their diploma no matter where they obtained their training or knowledge of the language(s) if, upon examination, they demonstrate appropriate levels of language mastery.

Continuity in curriculum

At this point, it is necessary to reiterate some of the ideas and themes developed in Chapter 8, because they relate to matters at least as important in later adolescence as in earlier years.

First, the necessity for students to be known by one teacher who has a commitment to their on-going welfare and progress is paramount. When a student enters Grade 9 or 10, she will have a new teacher-advisor, who will be the student's advisor and advocate for as many years as the student is in the school. (Thus, secondary school teachers, in addition to their subject teaching, will have responsibility for a group of students in the role of advisor.) It is essential that at this "handing-over" point, the new advisor speedily obtain the student's CEP, study it, and confer with the student near the beginning of the term, so that students do not feel that, in changing schools, they have lost the opportunity for a meaningful relationship with a teacher who knows their background and has a commitment to helping them make their way through school.

It should be evident that in small schools and in the schools-within-schools we have recommended, there will be solid opportunities for each student to know and be known by teachers and fellow students, lessening the sense, which many secondary school students told us they have, that no-one knows or cares whether they remain in school.

From Grade 10 on, the results of alienation from school that some students experience from an early age become most evident. There is the high drop-out rate among some ethno-cultural and aboriginal groups, as well as among disadvantaged students - the culmination of a process that begins much earlier.

While solutions to this problem are dependent on processes that also begin much earlier, teachers and counsellors must be particularly vigilant, in these school years, for signs that students are abandoning hope of graduating. While the Commission believes that the suggestions in this chapter will reduce the drop-out rate by serving all students better, by giving more students a reason to complete high school, by allowing them flexibility and providing support where needed, and by engaging them through curriculum that is of interest and relevance to them, it also recognizes that some students will still require specific types of help, including support and intervention by appropriate agencies and professionals. In addition to the teacher-advisor or home-room teacher concept we have described, it might be appropriate to link potential drop-outs with community mentors, post-secondary students, senior or more successful students, or even with retired teachers.

The Commission strongly urges schools and school boards to identify students at risk of dropping out, and to design innovative programs to help them stay in school.

The transition to work from school (and back again)

Throughout this report, we have said that we expect our recommendations, beginning with solid early childhood education, will lead to students learning more and learning it better, thus reducing the number of discouraged and unsuccessful students who reach Grade 10, and the age at which they can decide to leave school. This chapter has focused on a Grade 10-12 curriculum which, in our opinion, will increase the number of students who graduate, and who go on to post-secondary education. We do not pretend, however, that our suggestions, even if fully implemented, will mean that there will be no drop-outs, and that all graduates will go on to college or university. They should, however, be supported in moving into the workforce, just as drop-outs should be encouraged to drop back into school.

A student who leaves school to go to work, whether before or after earning a diploma, will probably need to learn how to find a job, how to apply for it, and how to evaluate her opportunities. At present, schools have no responsibility in this area, and do not provide the student with a link between school and work. Some students who leave school without a diploma find their way to the Youth Employment Service offices; most probably do not.

As well, students who leave without the diploma, work for a while, and then decide to re-enter school may or may not be encouraged and helped to do so. If, for example, a student left school in mid-course, he or she is unlikely to receive a partial credit, and will have to repeat the course from the beginning. This is another situation in which we recommend that students have the option of a challenge exam, and we believe schools that really want students to receive their diploma will welcome the idea.

We suggest that schools be equipped and expected to maintain an interest in students who leave to go to work, and in drop-outs who choose to re-enter. The career education specialists in the school must take on increasing responsibilities for career counselling older students and make clear that they are eager to help students who have made a decision to go to work. They can provide counselling directly, or can link students, when they are still in school, to such facilities as the Youth Employment Services and other community counselling resources. They can encourage former students to call or visit when they need guidance. The role of the school, and the school's career education specialist, should also include responsibility for assisting students to remain in school while they work, as well as to re-enter after they have left to go into the workforce. Challenge exams and prior learning assessments should be available to help former students pick up their formal education at as advanced a point as possible.

We suggest that the school take an active role in maintaining friendly and interested relations with the student who leaves school without a diploma, for at least a year or until she turns 18, whichever comes later.

We further suggest that this activity and monitoring be linked to the welfare system, so that students who leave school before age 18 and do not find work are encouraged to participate in training programs rather than moving onto welfare.

We would also like to see a variety of innovations, in addition to challenge exams and prior learning assessments, that make it easier for students to drop back in. For example, some students might be helped by formal re-entry programs geared to their needs. The programs might include remediation that increased the possibility of a successful re-entry. The school might work with community agencies to find shelter for former students having problems at home.

Depending on their needs, students might also be paired with mentors in the community who could provide moral and/or academic support. (Later, we identify necessary help for adult students facing difficult life situations.)

Recommendation 25

*We recommend that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board (OTAB) be given the mandate to take leadership, working in partnership with school boards, community colleges, and other community partners, to establish programs that will assist secondary school graduates and drop-outs to transfer successfully to the workforce, including increasing opportunities for apprenticeship and for other kinds of training as well as employment counselling.

The Ministry, school boards, and the schools should also encourage and smooth the re-entry of drop-outs into the school system.

We have not suggested that the compulsory school-leaving age be raised to 18, because we recognize that many students are impatient to leave school and move into the workforce; nonetheless, we want schools to feel a strong vested interest in, and responsibility for, former students under the age of 18. We believe it is healthy for the school, as well as for the former student, to see that its concern for the students extends beyond the classroom and school walls and into the community - not only while youngsters are enrolled in school, but as long as they are of secondary school age.

Summary

Every structure or curriculum organization that can be proposed for the post-elementary years reflects and embodies the cultural and social strains of the society it serves and from which it draws support. While it is not difficult to achieve general agreement on a common curriculum through the earlier years of schooling - tradition supports it - the lack of social consensus about commonality versus specialization (which underlies the debate about streaming and destreaming) quickly becomes obvious in the later years of schooling.

Because the Commission recognizes that this is so, and because we cannot invent any answer that would satisfy everyone, we are recommending a program that honours the need many students feel for greater coherence and specialization; we are doing so by suggesting that each student be involved in a three-year program organized around a subject, an interdisciplinary area, or a career/professional area. We are aware that the idea of having students aged 15 to 18 choose a subject or career focus may seem to some to be premature specialization. But we have chosen this strategy because it is the best way we know of giving some sense of coherence and purpose to programming after the common curriculum.

The plan acknowledges that students differ in the degree to which they are motivated by academic and applied interests in various subject areas. We are allowing students' programs to reflect those differences in emphasis. While we discussed at length the idea of extending the common curriculum through graduation, as for example the Radwanski report proposed (as in earlier grades, all students take the same courses, at the same level, and in the same sequence) - and while we know there are strong arguments for that plan, we have opted instead for a mixed model, which includes opportunities for specialization.

At the same time, we have built in a very significant degree of commonality, within a semi-specialized program: courses that are not "gate-keeping" for university or college programs should be offered in one format only; students should choose OAcC or OApC courses based on the specialty or major subject they want to pursue, not just on whether they want to go to university, college, or work. As well, we have pointed out the need for a more applied focus in many courses and the importance of making work experience a significant component for all students, regardless of destination.

Again, we are aware that, just as some people will disagree with the notion of earlier specialization by subject, others will reject the degree of commonality and the decreased degree of streaming in our plan, compared to current practice. We are convinced that one of the most important things the people of Ontario can learn from our most-cited national competitor in educational excellence, Japan, is that it is mainly motivation not inherent and unalterable differences in ability and intelligence - that distinguishes successful from unsuccessful students.

We have no illusion that the program we are recommending is perfect, or that others will not be able to improve it. Indeed, we depend on an informed public and on educational leaders to do just that. We have, however, made a real effort to be true to the principles that informed our discussion of education for children from 3 to 15. Our vision of excellent education for older students depends on the same essentials as those on which we based our suggestions about the common core curriculum.

The program will

• facilitate learning for all students - learning defined as the continuing development of high levels of "literacies," disciplined and rigorous thinking across and within subject areas. At the secondary level, curriculum integration may or may not move in the direction of the four strands of The Common Curriculum. But it must be an integration of the entire three-year program: all students should have a sense that their courses form a coherent whole which is clearly related to their future as post-secondary students and as workers. The emphasis must be on making subject-based learning meaningful and useful. Hence, course development at the Ministry level must involve colleges and universities, and course delivery at the local level must involve the business and labour community.

• be based on very clear outcomes, and very flexible about strategies. The Ministry of Education and Training must provide leadership in clarifying the expected outcomes of secondary education; if, for example all students should be able to demonstrate mastery of certain levels in mathematics, or a particular body of knowledge about Canadian history and culture, those outcomes must be clearly stated, and curriculum review and assessment measures developed and used. At the same time, strong encouragement should be given, and resources be developed, to support flexibility at the school and individual level. Smaller modules of instruction, challenge exams, and individualized course delivery offer the kind of flexibility that enables students to make choices about the pace of learning, and encourages them to take responsibility for their education and to persist.

• build on a strong foundation for program choice, beginning in the elementary years, by providing abundant opportunities for students to gain experience in a variety of work settings through community service and curriculum-integrated activities in the neighbourhood and the classroom; and for reflecting on one's experiences and responses to these situations.

• facilitate a sense of community and supportive relationships among students and between students and teachers, and between the school and the larger community - all on behalf of student learning. Students learn best when they feel that their success matters to their teachers and is valued by their peers (as well as their parents). Such caring and valuing is most likely to thrive when students and teachers, and students and students, know each other as individuals, in a face-to-face community, the kind that may occur in a small school unit, and in a teacher-advisory program.

• be built on a strong relationship between the school and community in support of learners, and thus make significant local resources available to students; at the same time, it reinforces the school's commitment to its part-time and full-time students, even beyond the school walls, and encourages an on-going relationship with them, until they are 18 years old, in order to protect their opportunities to continue to learn and to thrive.

Many kinds of secondary school programs can be created in keeping with these principles. But any school that focuses on building a learning community, which reaches out to include the diverse learners who are its clients, which is scaled to attend to their individual needs, and which recognizes that it is part of a larger community of learners, will not be structured on the basis of a timetable. Nor will it be organized according to an administrative or bureaucratic rationale, rather than grounded in the need to enhance most students' opportunities to learn.

Finally, we recognize that parents (as well as students) must have a clear overview of the continuity of learning through childhood and adolescence.

Recommendation 26

*We recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training create a brief and clear document that describes for parents what their children are expected to learn and to know, based on the developmental framework of stages of learning from birth to school entrance, The Common Curriculum, and the secondary school graduation outcomes. Succinct information on college and university programs should be also included.

This document would inform parents of what it is that children can be expected to learn, know, and be able to do as they develop into adult learners.

Adult education

Secondary schools are serving a rapidly increasing number and proportion of adult learners. In 1991-92, about 13 percent of all secondary day school students were 19 years or older, and half of that group was 22 or older; the average age of the adult students was 30.

While the adult sector of the secondary school population grew by 24 percent between 1990 and 1992 alone, school boards have no obligation to provide adult education. When spaces are filled, adults are turned away, in contrast to the legal obligation schools have to students between the ages of 4 and 21. Legislation and space for adult learners in the free public education system, until completion of the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD), have not kept pace with our social commitment to lifelong learning.

Recommendation 27

* We recommend that, in order to ensure that all Ontario residents, regardless of age, have access to a secondary school diploma, publicly funded school boards be given the mandate and the funds to provide adult educational programs.

Many adults working toward the OSSD are immigrants educated in other countries. In other cases, the adult learner was educated in Ontario, dropped out of secondary school, and has spent many years in the workforce. While there is a mechanism in place for assessing prior learning as a vehicle for granting credit equivalency for courses taken elsewhere or for work experience, many observers suggest that it is under-used, and that, as a result, many adult learners are required to begin or resume their secondary education at an earlier point than is necessary.

We believe that a more consistent application of the prior learning assessment strategy is necessary, and that the PLA options should include an examination for a secondary school equivalency diploma. The Ministry of Education and Training should co-ordinate a major exploration of the General Education Diploma and other equivalency measures, building on work already being done in the college sector, in preparation for instituting an equivalency examination in Ontario. A similar mechanism exists in many other Canadian jurisdictions, and is particularly relevant in Ontario, which has more immigrants than any other province. Furthermore, we believe that the same process of accrediting prior learning, wherever gained, makes equally good sense at the college and university levels.

Recommendations 28, 29

*We therefore recommend that a consistent process of prior learning assessment be developed for adult students in Ontario, and that this process include an examination for a secondary school equivalency diploma.

*We further recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training, with its mandate which includes post-secondary education, require the development of challenge exams and other appropriate forms of prior learning assessment by colleges and universities, to be used up to and including the granting of diplomas and degrees.

We have suggested that prior learning assessment and challenge exams are an appropriate and essential part of a flexible learning system for all learners. Adults need the same kind of flexibility, and probably need it more often if they are to succeed in the formal education system.

Similarly, other mechanisms for increasing flexibility in secondary schools - for example, breaking courses into smaller units or modules, and greatly facilitating school re-entry, are hallmarks of a system that is responsive to adults as well as to adolescents. Moreover, expanding co-operative education opportunities and greatly enhancing career education and counselling, as we have recommended for secondary schools, is extremely important to adult learners.

Adult education in day schools may or may not be related to labour force development. While many adults may wish to obtain the OSSD in order to make themselves more marketable, others may want to obtain a general education for their own intellectual and cultural development, apart from job or career considerations. This is also true of adults taking such non-credit courses in the publicly funded school system as English or French as a second language, as well as basic education (literacy and numeracy). While the Ontario government has made clear its commitment to adult education when that is directed at increased labour force participation, it has not made the same assurance for general education for adults.

In 1993, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board (OTAB) Conseil ontarien de la formation et de l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre (COFAM) - was created to co-ordinate labour force development programs and services. It is governed jointly by representatives of education, training, business, labour, and equity groups. Its mandate covers training of all sorts, for the employed and the unemployed, and includes apprenticeship, entry-level training and retraining, and literacy and youth employment services (counselling and generic job-search skills training).

Although OTAB is committed to lifelong learning, that commitment is placed within the framework of labour force development. This has led to concerns about adult literacy learners who might not be workers or potential workers (seniors, for example, and others at home who are crucially important to their children's learning) and who wish to improve their literacy skills for their own personal development. We believe that society benefits from a citizenry that has a sound basic education, and we are acutely aware of the advantages parental literacy gives children.

Recommendation 30

*We recommend that the right of adults to pursue literacy education must be protected, regardless of employment status or intentions.

The need for adult literacy programs not tied to workforce status is particularly acute in the Ontario francophone community, both for adults as citizens and for adults as parents. It is particularly difficult for children to become literate in French in an anglophone society when their parents cannot actively support their literacy development.

Recommendation 31

*We recommend that COFAM/OTAB immediately define and set aside, for short- and medium-term adult literacy programs, a francophone allotment that is not linked to participation in the workforce, in addition to the francophone programs linked to workforce status and intention.

As a Commission concerned primarily with the education of children and youth, we are aware that increasing parents' and grandparents' literacy has extremely positive implications for the educational success and life opportunities of their children. For this reason, and because we think education must be a right for all citizens, regardless of age, we believe that all adults have the right to a basic education, up to and including the OSSD, and that this right must be guaranteed, irrespective of employment status or potential.

Adult education and training are now being delivered by a wide variety of public and private institutions and groups, profit and non-profit. It seems quite likely that the number of adults being served will grow in future, as will the number of services being offered such as the training programs (unrelated to the secondary school diploma program) offered by school boards in partnership with government, business, and labour, and now regulated through the Local Training and Apprenticeship Boards (LTABs).

The many training facilities that school boards have available make them obvious candidates for increased delivery of programs on contract. While we heard arguments in favour of a multiplicity of delivery agents for both education and training of adults, and while we have no reason to doubt that different kinds of delivery and deliverers can appropriately meet the needs of different learners, we are concerned about the lack of an inventory of existing programs, either as a guide to learners and to educational and employment counsellors, or as a guide to government and non-governmental organizations concerned about planning and rationalizing programs.

Adult education and training clearly are a major and rapidly expanding part of our learning system. We want to ensure that adult education is stabilized and inclusive, as part of a lifelong learning system and in order to make efficient use of scarce resources.

We strongly suggest to the Ministry of Education and Training that it place restrictions on creating new adult educational and training programs or on discontinuing existing ones, until an inventory of such programs has been completed, and major deliverers have had an opportunity to rationalize existing services.

We would hope that, in time, there would be a central information source on all kinds of adult training and upgrading programs, accessible from anywhere in the province through a 1-800 telephone number, and by modem, with the information also on CD-ROMs available at community information centres and libraries.

__________
Endnotes (Chapter 10)

1. Premier's Council of Ontario, People and Skills in the New Global Economy (Toronto, 1990), p. 32.
2. Alan King, The Good School (Toronto: Ontario Secondary School Teachers, Federation, 1990), p. 51-55.
3. A. King and M. Peart, The Numbers Game: A Study of Evaluation and Achievement in Ontario Schools (Toronto: Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, 1994), p. 7.
4. S. Crysdale and H. MacKay, Youth's Passage Through School to Work (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishers, 1994)
5. Ontario, Ministry of Education, Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education, and the Issue of Dropouts (Toronto, 1987). Prepared by George Radwanski.
6. Crysdale and MacKay, Youth's Passage.
7. R.E. Slavin, "Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis," Review of Educational Research 60, no. 3 (1990): 471-99
8. King and Peart, The Numbers Game, p. 16.
9. J. Oakes and M. Lipton, "Detracking Schools: Early Lessons from the Field," Phi Delta Kappan 73, no. 6 (1992): 448-54
10. King and Peart, The Numbers Game, p. 17-29.
11. Ontario, Ministry of Education, Rights of Passage: A Review of Selected Research about Schooling in the Transition Years (Toronto, 1990). Prepared by A. Hargreaves and L. Earl.
12. Graham Orpwood, "Scientific Literacy for All," p. 27. Background paper for the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, 1994.
13. Ontario Association for Mathematics Education and The Ontario Mathematics Coordinators Association, Focus on Renewal of Mathematics Education: Guiding Principles for the Early, Formative and Transition Years, A Document for Ontario Educators (Markham, ON, 1993).
14. King and Peart, The Numbers Game.
15. Premier's Council on Economic Renewal, Task Force on Lifelong Learning, "Improving Service to the Learner as Customer: Report of Working Group III" (Toronto, 1993), p. 17.

ISBN 0-7778-3577-0
©Copyright 1994, Queens Printer for Ontario