THE STATE AND THE CURRICULUM: QUESTIONS AND OPTIONS FOR QUÉBEC / L’ÉTAT ET LE CURRICULUM. QUESTIONS ET OPTIONS POUR LE QUÉBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the role of educators, scholars, cultural and business leaders, parents, and the learners in curriculum development? Who “owns᾿ the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools in Quebec? And what is the proper role of the government? Curriculum is more than a set of documents, approved textbooks, or official examinations. It is the script for a dialogue between a society and its young people, a narrative about what we think is important. Over the last half century, there have been four major models of curriculum organization in Quebec: (1) prior to the 1960s, divided and centralized Catholic and Protestant structures, with authority largely outside the government; (2) the reforms of the 1960s, with direct centralized government control over policy but decentralized procedures; (3) a tightening up of control over both policy and procedures in the late 1970s, part of a general back-to-basics movement; (4) the current reforms beginning in the late 1990s, with government-directed approaches to organization, competencies and evaluation. These different reforms have exhibited a number of relatively stable characteristics: periodic rather than continuing reform, dominant role of the MEQ (now Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport [MELS]), initial consultation on broad questions and an unclear relationship with subsequent policy decisions, extensive documentation, managerial and technical approach to curriculum, limited academic and professional influence on final decisions, stress on a single coherent system for all schools, and little emphasis on research, curriculum practices elsewhere and information technologies. At the present time, curriculum planners in Quebec are facing a number of dilemmas, especially quality of standards and equality of access, centralization and adaptability, and different views about the relative roles of the public, the government and the teaching profession. For the future of Quebec curriculum, a number of scenarios are worth considering: continuing the dominant role of the MELS putting all curriculum on-line, outsourcing curriculum development, forming partnerships with various education bodies, giving more authority to the education profession, accrediting schools, and creating a separate curriculum council to coordinate research and development. L’ETAT ET LE CURRICULUM. QUESTIONS ET OPTIONS POUR LE QUEBEC Quel est le role des enseignants, des universitaires, des acteurs du domaine culturel et du monde des affaires et des apprenants dans la conception du curriculum ? Qui est le « detenteur du titre de propriete » pour le curriculum au niveau primaire et secondaire au Quebec ? Quel est le juste role du gouvernement ? Le curriculum est bien plus qu’un ensemble de documents, de manuels scolaires approuves et d’examens de fin d’annee. Il s’agit d’un scenario pour la creation d’un dialogue entre la societe et la jeunesse, un recit a propos de ce que nous considerons important. Depuis la derniere moitie du siecle dernier, il y a eu quatre principaux modeles d’organisation du curriculum au Quebec : 1- celui d’avant 1960 divises en secteur catholique et protestant avec des structures centralisees; 2-les reformes des annees 1960 avec un controle gouvernemental centralise quant aux politiques mais avec des procedures decentralisees; 3- une prise en charge plus serree sur les politiques et les procedures durant les annees 1970 qui s’inscrivait dans un mouvement du retour a l’essentiel; 4-les reformes actuelles qui ont debutees a la fin des annees 1990 avec des approches gouvernementales dirigistes a l’endroit de l’organisation, des competences et de l’evaluation. Ces differentes reformes ont demontre plusieurs caracteristiques recurrentes : les reformes sont ponctuelles plutot que continuelles, le role central du ministere de l’Education, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS); des consultations initiales a propos de questions tres vastes et des liens plus ou moins clairs avec les grandes orientations decisionnelles; une documentation abondante; une approche gestionnaire et technique du curriculum; une influence limitee de la part des universitaires et des professionnels quant aux decisions finales; un accent important sur un seul systeme coherent pour toutes les ecoles et finalement peu d’importance accordee a la recherche, aux pratiques curriculaires hors-Quebec et aux technologies de l’information. A l’heure actuelle, les concepteurs de curriculum au Quebec font face a plusieurs dilemmes, plus particulierement en ce qui concerne la qualite des standards et un acces equitable; la centralisation et l’adaptabilite et finalement differentes visions quant aux roles du public, du gouvernement et de la profession enseignante. Pour l’avenir du curriculum au Quebec, certains scenarios valent la peine d’etre consideres : Poursuivre le role dominant du MELS; mettre tous les curriculums en ligne, ouvrir a la competition le developpement curriculaire; etablir des partenariats avec plusieurs entites educatives; donner plus d’autorite a la profession enseignante; accrediter les ecoles et creer un conseil curriculaire autonome qui coordonne la recherche et le developpement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".