Historical Memory Loss: What’s Happened to the Story of Canada imparted in our Anglo-Canadian Schools?*

Five years into a $2.5-million seven-year Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) study known as “Thinking Historically for Canada’s Future,” funding support from 17 universities and 31 educational  organizations has grown  to exceed $8.6-million. Given that sizable investment, the whole project would benefit from more public scrutiny.

The ‘Thinking Historically’ project is the first major review of K-12 history and social studies in Canada since 1968. From my vantage point, it appears as if the project leader Carla Peck, a professor of social studies education at the University of Alberta, and her team are mostly focused on ‘perfecting teaching’ rather than carrying the torch in the ongoing debate over saving history as an endangered species in our schools. .

The project is headed and driven by education professors very much wedded to prevailing thinking and contemporary trends in North American social studies education. The goal is not to resurrect a shriveling subject discipline, but something else, as Peck told Brian Bethune in a recent University Affairs feature on dwindling history enrolments. Their goal, in her words, is to “understand how a critical historical thinking approach to teaching and learning history — and by critical, I mean analytical, not finding something wrong with everything — can support the development of critically minded citizens.”

Fine distinctions are important when it comes to delving into the state of history in today’s social studies curriculum. History as a subject in schools and universities is in crisis. Historica Canada, sponsors of the Canadian History Report Card, as well as most history department professors and high school teachers tend to favour “more history, taught better.” The key priority, reaffirmed since 2009 in the national Report Card reports, was to ensure that all high school students completed a required course in Canada’s history before graduation. Yet, even today, only five of our provinces meet that threshold.  On the 2021 Canadian History Report Card, prepared by Samantha Cutrara, Alberta was awarded a D-, ranking last among the provinces and territories.

Many history professors and high school specialists question the effectiveness of the Historical Thinking  approach in turning back the tide. That advancing tidal wave is most evident in the erosion of history-anchored curricula and in declining high school and university course enrolments.

Long before the late Peter Seixas established his Historical Thinking framework and Benchmarks of Historical Thinking, he described history as “a discipline cast adrift”   the British Columbia social studies curriculum. The founder of the Thinking Historically movement, it should be noted, supported the centrality of history in a social studies curriculum.

History as a subject always seems to be imperiled, even in Ontario with its more robust tradition of providing it with preferred status in the social studies curriculum. The problem was flagged in 1995 by the late Bob Davis in Whatever Happened to High School History: Buring the Political Memory of Youth Ontario:1945–1995. In Ontario, where history formed part of the core curriculum, Davis discovered that enrolment went from accounting for 11.4 per cent of all classes in 1964 to a mere 6.6 per cent in 1982. In addition to losing ground, history and social studies became afflicted with what he aptly termed the “skills mania” afflicting our schools. Abandoning narrative history contributed to the decline by depriving our students of opportunities to engage with the larger national story and to develop a stronger sense of historical consciousness and collective memory.

Trilby Kent, the author of the 2022 book The Vanishing Past, concurs with Davis’s earlier assessment. Since the early 1970s, social history, Davis and Kent both point out, not only squeezed out older forms of history (political and economic) but contributed to fragmentation and sectarianism. In her book and in the Bethune article, Kent makes a persuasive case that such changes undermined “the sort of story that draws children to history,”  Much of it was driven by the turn away from teaching engaging narrative history and towards critical-thinking-focused pedagogy. “By the 1990s, Kent observes, “‘learning how to learn’ had all but replaced learning content”

The Historical Thinking movement, launched by Seixas, never really gained as much traction among Quebec historians or history educators.  History, memory and collective consciousness have always found resonance in French-speaking Quebec. From the late 1990s onward, history education researcher Jocelyn Létourneau eschewed what he termed “historical studies” and focused his research on how history shaped the historical consciousness of youth. Instead of working on perfecting how to teach history, he conducted surveys in 2000 and 2014 to ascertain how history conveyed a narrative and discovered that young Quebeckers exhibited a distinct and abiding sense of collective memory and consciousness.

More recently, University of Ottawa history education specialist Stéphane Lévesque has called into question the near exclusive emphasis on the “Seixas matrix” and pointed out the fact that “little policy has been informed by research about students.” Following the trail blazed by Létourneau, Lévesque and Jean-Philippe Croteau’s 2020 book, Beyond History for Historical Consciousness, examined what are termed “mythistories” based upon a 2016 survey completed by  635 high school students in Quebec and Ontario. While it was a relatively small sample study, it did break with the orthodoxy and made the case that history can be a potentially powerful force in shaping collective national identity. Teaching history, Lévesque and Croteau demonstrate, is not just about training students in historical thinking, but about “an essential cultural factor” – the “process of gaining narrative competence.”

One of Canada’s leading public historians, Trent University Canadian studies professor Christopher Dummitt, sees the writing on the wall. The current “presentist and potted-plant”   to teaching history and social studies not only robs the subject of its broader appeal, but can be repelling if it is all cast within a history of victimhood and subjugation. The new national narrative will have no trace “of the fact that there really was a Canadian story amidst all this [oppressed] diversity,” he says. The implicit message, whether intended or not, is a story of an “illegitimate ‘settler colonial nation, steeped in a racist history.’”

History is also losing ground in the battle for students at our universities. The American Historical Association has identified enrolment decline in history courses as a critical problem and tracks the numbers, including trends in six Canadian universities. Prompted by fierce ‘culture war’ debates, the AHA is also surveying educators to assess its impact upon the teaching of U.S. history in American high school classrooms. From a peak enrolment in 2010–11, humanities enrolments at Canadian universities tumbled significantly until levelling out in 2016, according to  by Alex Usher and his consulting firm Higher Education Strategy Associates. History took the biggest hit as students turned away from “narrative” humanities.

The decline in humanities enrolment, Usher points out, has reduced numbers back to where they were around 2000, when universities still had “a functioning humanities system.” The STEM, health, and business enrolments, which have been growing through the twenty-first century, have boomed even while history majors have declined  from more than 15,000 to around 10,000.

Forty years ago, one of Canada’s most respected education professors, Kieran Egan, took dead aim at the “expanding horizons” framework in his courageous 1983 essay, “Social Studies and the Erosion of Education.” To the shock of many contemporaries, he claimed that much of elementary social studies was based upon a “flawed” psychological theory, amounted to little more than “socializing children,” and eroded the foundations of sound education (Egan 1983, 1999).

Today social studies experts in the United States are beginning to reject “expanding horizons” as an overarching integrative framework. The most recent policy statement of the National Council for Social Studies, issued in 2017, put it this way: “The ‘expanding communities’ curriculum model of self, family, community, state, and nation is insufficient for today’s young learners. Elementary social studies should include civic engagement, as well as knowledge from the core content areas of civics, economics, geography, and history.”

History needs to be significantly upgraded in the holistic Alberta social studies curriculum and revivified elsewhere in Canada.  A whole mélange of social studies courses is crowding out history in high schools in Alberta and in other provinces.  It’s hard to imagine the Historical Thinking project making much of a difference, given the social studies focus of its director and its core Alberta supporters, exerting considerable influence in shaping its direction.

Focusing exclusively on teaching and learning historical thinking skills may well have obscured the essential role of history education in building “narrative competencies” in students and shaping our collective historical consciousness. More public advocacy where it counts is needed if we are ever to achieve the goal of ensuring that all students complete a high school course covering Canada’s history in all its diversity and complexity, reflecting a range of perspectives.

*An abridged version of Saving History in Canada’s Schools (ML Institute, April 18, 2024)

What would happen today if we asked senior high school students to “tell us the story of Canada” and conducted the same survey in every province/territory from coast-to-coast?  Would our graduating students know the major turning points in our history and be able to provide a coherent response? Would the responses give credence to Dr. Chris Dummitt’s worst fears — eliciting a garbled explanation that Canada is an “illegitimate settler-colonial nation” harbouring sublimated racism?  Or would a whole generation of students lack “narrative competency” and be unable to provide any kind of answer?

Smartphones,Children and Schools: How Can Schools Make Bans Stick This Time Around?

Banning cellphones in school has gained momentum and it will only grow in the wake of Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Anxious Generation, making a persuasive case that “phone-based childhood” is contributing to the child and youth mental health crisis. We may be at a public policy tipping point because a majority of adults  – principals, teachers, mental health professionals, and parents now favour a severe restriction or outright ban on the so-called “weapons of mass distraction.”

Banning cellphones has been debated over the past fifteen years and previous policy initiatives in Canada and elsewhere have either stalled or fallen short in their implementation. Now that Haidt’s book is an international best seller, school authorities in the United Sates and Canada are under renewed pressure to rid schools of the “weapons of mass distraction” and to get it right this time around.

TikTok took over the teen world and mobile phone addiction grew from 2019 to 2022, according to San Diego State psychologist Jean Twenge’s latest North American child and teen social media use surveys. It’s now harder than ever to capture attention let alone teach students in classrooms. Banning cellphones provides a temporary respite, but the problem is much wider and runs deeper.  For classroom teachers, the real solution lies in curtailing distractions and focusing on developing what Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion described as “habits of attention.”

Cellphone culture has permeated our lives and few are immune to its addictive influences. The re-wiring of teen brains, dubbed “TikTok Brain,” is emerging as a decisive factor tipping the balance in favour of outright school bans or school-wide systematic and enforceable restrictions. Leading educators such as researchED UK founder Tom Bennett and Doug Lemov were among the first to identify the problem – tiny boxes of kryptonite that erode the attention span of students in today’s classrooms.

Mounting research evidence supports initiatives to banish the infernal devices and reclaim the minds of students in schools everywhere.  Social media addiction and mobile phone dependence are definitely connected with soaring rates of teen mental health issues, all documented by Dr Jean Twenge and evident in surveys generated by Common Sense Media.  Pandemic school closures and social isolation from March 2020 to June 2021 made it far worse.   Haidt’s riveting book provides a compelling diagnosis of the problem confronting us in reclaiming the “phone-based generation” and weaning off- younger teachers ensnared in that same web.

School leaders and policy-makers are now far more attuned to the “great rewiring of childhood.” It’s no longer just a school system issue but a societal problem that needs to be tackled across the entire social policy domain – from public heath to education and social services. Momentum is building to roll back phone-based childhood, especially in elementary school and middle school because of the vital importance of protecting kids during early puberty when brains are still in development.

A broad prescription based upon affirming four fundamental social norms can be found in Jon Haidt’s bold and provocative new book:

1. No smartphones before high school (as a norm, not a law), and encourage parents to give young kids flip phones, basic phones, or phone watches;
2. No social media before 16 (as a norm, but one that would be much more effective if supported by child health and safety protection laws and regulations;
3. Phone-free schools (use phone lockers or Yondr pouches for the whole school day, so that students can focus on learning, pay attention to their teachers, and interact with one another;
4. Nurture and develop more “free-range children” enabled by a “let grow” philosophy and imbued with a spirit of creativity, more resilience, and better prepared to assume their responsibilities in the real world.

Educational jurisdictions in Europe and Australia have a head start on us. Six years ago, France took the plunge with a system-wide ban on cellphones in class. The United Kingdom joined governments and education authorities around the world in January 2024 in  restricting the use of mobile phones in schools. Policy-makers in the U.K. may be more successful because they see it as an extension of the broader ‘student behaviour’ policy committed to ensuring calmer, safer and more productive classrooms.

The public policy needle is beginning to move in Canada, evident from province-to-province over the past year or so.  Starting in January 2024, Quebec has imposed new restrictions on the devices in schools, Ontario is reviewing its hole-ridden school-level restrictions, and British Columbia is moving in the same direction. What’s different this time is that governments are approaching it as a public health issue and preparing to close the loopholes in previous policy initiatives. Here in Canada, provincial Child and Youth Advocates, such as Kelly Lamrock of New Brunswick, are now coming onside. That will ensure that it is approached as more of a cross-sectoral movement.

Not much will change until the reclaim childhood from cellphone addiction campaign is seen as a public health initiative supported by significant political will. Only then will the cellphone be seen as the cigarette of the 21^st century.

Do smartphones need to be banished from today’s classrooms?  What happened to previous initiatives aimed at curbing their use over the past 15 years? Is it necessary to establish conclusively that excessive use “causes mental health issues” in children and teens?  Will the plan proposed by Jonathan Haidt in The Anxious Generation (2024) gain widespread adoption?

High School Graduation: What’s Eroding a Long-Cherished Academic Milestone?*

High school graduation has long been cherished as a significant milestone in the vast majority of students’ personal lives.  News that it is now being reinvented was bound to evoke widespread concern, especially in a time of runaway grade inflation and ‘every-one-gets a pass’ education. That’s why the Ontario Ottawa-Carleton District School Board‘s plan to revamp its high school graduation ceremonies attracted so much public and media attention.  A story in the Ottawa Citizen  headed “No Pass, No Problem,” reported that everyone would get an achievement certificate whether they passed or not.  Little wonder it immediately became the latest flashpoint in the ongoing debate over declining standards in Canada’s schools.

The Ontario public school district, the OCDSB, is proposing to change graduation ceremonies into commencement exercises and striking out “awards” from its policy.  It the proposed changes are accepted in April 2024, will soon get recognized at a June “commencement” ceremony without passing or securing a graduation diploma.

The proposed shift replaces “graduation” with “commencement,” but the changes go far beyond a simple doctoring of the language.  A graduation marks a stage in a student’s academic career recognizing the successful completion of a program, signified by the achievement of a diploma, and the conferring of a range of academic and non-academic student awards. Changing it to a “commencement” implies that it’s a community celebration, including everyone, which marks “the beginning of a journey” in education rather than a milestone.

The clock is ticking on the changes. Proposed amendments to OCDSB policy P.038.SCO, dating from May 1998, initiated by Associate Director Brett Reynolds and senior staff, were tabled for public feedback until March 29, and will be reviewed on by a board committee on April 4, then presented to the Board of Trustees on April 25 for final approval.  That’s clearly not enough time to ensure proper public engagement and accountability, but par- for-the course at the local school board level.

The OCDSB claims that the intent of the change is to make the end-of-year ceremony more inclusive.  “At commencement, students of all levels of achievement will be able to cross the stage with their peers,” reads the official statement that accompanied an invitation for members of the public to comment on the proposed change.

The OCDSB rationale downplays the salient difference: “For a variety of reasons, students may not have completed all the requirements for a move on from secondary school. With this change, these students will be able to join their peers and celebrate their achievements.” What students who have not passed the grade are celebrating is a clear as mud. It, in fact, implies that simply “showing up” is now worthy of praise.

Graduation rates have skyrocketed as well as final averages over the past two decades or more.  While Ontario high school graduation rates in the early 1990s sat 68 percent, they now soar into the high 80’s and early 90’s. Being an Ontario Scholar used to mean securing an 80 per cent average; today the vast majority of students exceed what was formally a benchmark of academic excellence.

The awarding of high marks is deeply entrenched and that, in many ways, has undermined the value of a high school diploma.  In June 2022, for example, some 86.1 per cent of Ottawa-Carleton DSB students graduated in 4 years (Grade 9 to 12) and 90.5 per cent took five years. That’s a little above the provincial average, comparable to Toronto DSB (85.6 %/ 5 years) but lower than York Region DSB (94.2 % / 5years) and York Region Catholic DSB (97.3% / 5 years).

It’s still alarming to examine the impact of the proposed OCDSB changes on the current cohort of graduates. Students who work conscientiously to complete the high school program will have their achievement diminished further by the presence of a smaller group, roughly 14 per cent, who get a free pass to participate in the final ceremony.

The OCDSB policy change did not come out of nowhere. It owes its origins to the OCDSB Strategic Plan for 2023-27 and its undergirding philosophy – a commitment to inclusion, equity and accessibility for all students. While few quibble with embracing inclusive education, the devil is in the details and the extent to which it now overrides the core mission of schools – teaching and learning in the classroom.

Recognizing high student achievement is now being conflated with the “traditional graduation ceremony” and that is seen as antithetical to the overriding goal of “celebrating all levels of achievement” while serving those who have been “underserved” by the school system.

Most inspiring school reforms and policy changes seek to lift children up and to instill what American education psychology professor Carol Dweck calls a “growth mindset.” For students, it amounts to a “commitment to thrive on challenge” where you don’t see failure as a way to describe yourself but as “a springboard for growth and developing your abilities.”

Degrading graduation is completely at odds with fostering a student growth ethic and a commitment to exceed expectations. If the OCDSB policy changes go through and other boards follow suit, it may, in fact, breed complacency and give aid and comfort to what former U. S. President George W, Bush once called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  It will have arrived when, in the not-to-distant-future, everyone gets a high school participation certificate.

*An earlier version appeared in The Hub Canada, March 14, 2024. 

What has happened to erode the value and recognition once accorded to a high school diploma?  Does embracing “inclusion” have to be reduced to debasing awards?  Why does it amount to lowering or removing academic hurdles, when there are other, more constructive ways of broadening the awards to incorporate a broader range of competencies? What’s the broader impact of removing the incentive to excel, and the reward for excelling, in your studies?  Are schools succumbing to the “soft bigotry” of lowered expectations, selling all studernts short?  

Pink Shirt Day: How effective are ‘one-day wonders’ in curbing bullying in schools?

Every school year for the past fifteen the last Wednesday in February has been recognized and promoted as Pink Shirt Day aimed at curbing bullying and reducing its harmful effects on children and teens. It originated on September 13, 2007 when Grade 12 Nova Scotia students David Shepherd and Travis Price at Central Kings District High School organized a protest to show their solidarity with a Grade 9 student who was targeted, in part, for wearing a pink shirt.

Pink Shirt Day is now a cause célèbre which has mushroomed into a global “Anti-Bullying” movement. Since it’s founding, “Pink Day” has been recognized as a national day of action in Canada, attracted high-profile public sector and corporate sponsors, spread in 2009 to New Zealand, and likely influenced the United Nations in 2012 to declare May 4 as U.N. Anti-Bullying Day.

Hundreds of thousands of students and staff have participated in 15 Pink Shirt Days right across Canada and in over 100 countries of the world. Over the past few years, the bloom is beginning to come off the pink rose.  A few academics and social justice advocates are asking what it’s accomplished beyond raising public consciousness.

School bullying has not declined and, in many ways, gotten worse because it’s now impacting a wider range of kids targeted for being different.  In Canada, where Pink Shirt Day originated, Statistics Canada data (2021) demonstrates that the prevalence of bullying victimization has remained relatively stable over the past 12 years. more girls report being bullied, and more boys report bullying others. The percentage of students who report bullying others increases with grade for boys. Verbal bullying and cyberbullying now exceed physical forms of bullying.

Bullying is incredibly difficult to stamp out and that is borne out by recent studies.  While Canadian experts on bullying prevention are reluctant to raise concerns about “Pink Shirt Day,” they do recognize that current approaches are not working and need to be more embedded into whole school culture.

York University psychology professor Debra Pepler, a specialist on aggression in children, points out that “one-off interventions” have little effect because the most effective strategies are usually implemented across the school and engage students and staff alike.  Focusing on high school, where Pink Shirt Day originated, is a tougher slog because most successful interventions happen in the earlier grades.

Pink Shirt Day appeals to ‘do-good’ high school students with a social conscience.  At its inception, the movement was mostly spontaneous with a touch of youthful naïveté. When a new grade 9 student, later identified variously as Chuck MacNeill or Jadrien Cota, was bullied for wearing a pink t-shirt, Shepherd and Price purchased 50 pink tank tops to distribute to their fellow students. In the wake of this show of solidarity, the grassroots protest spead far and wide.

Contemporary critics have begun to pick holes in the heartwarming story. Three years ago, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives commentator Amanda Gebhard, took exception to the popular version of the origins story.  Pink t-shirts emblazoned with slogans like “Be a buddy, not a bully” and “Kindness is one size-fits all” conveyed the impression it would go away if everyone was “nice to one another.” The initial victim, she claimed, “was not bullied for wearing a pink shirt. Classmates taunted and threatened him with physical violence because they believed he was gay.” Simple acts of kindness may not get to the real root of the problem – homophobia.

Teen bullying is often viewed as a rite of passage. Developing a thicker skin and the ability to overcome harassment and negotiate your way through rough peer interactions is part of growing up.  Learning to cope with normal teen stress, according to mental health practitioners, can be helpful in developing the resilience born of greater self-confidence and stronger social and emotional skills.

Children and teens suffering prolonged suffering or confronting serious mental health disorders are an entirely different problem. Fears and torments caused by repeated or incessant bullying produce serious and sometimes irreversible  negative physical and mental health outcomes because of stress caused by bullying. Lone victims isolated or ostracized in normal classrooms can suffer worse effects, sometimes blaming themselves for their victimization. In extreme cases, it can and does tragically result in teens taking their own lives.

Serious and unrelenting bullying, particularly that directed at gay or transgendered kids, is an enormous social problem and not one where “being nice” makes much of a difference. Holding one day a year and dressing up for the occasion runs the risk of trivializing the issue or reducing it to performative politics. If and when that happens, Pink Shirt Day may go the way of “WE Day,” another messianic Canadian-born teen engagement phenomenon.

Reclaiming classrooms, hallways and parking lots will require more than “Pink Day” displays of solidarity. Talking about bullying does little to redress the power imbalance in schools where bullies enjoy status and influence, intimidating others into silence. Standing up for “Pink Day” may actually expose you to more bullying. Nor does it resonate as well with the politically-active trans community waving their own rainbow flags.

Pink Shirt Day is what Halifax journalist Suzanne Rent aptly described as “a performance and it looks great on social media.” Getting to the root of the problem will involve more than periodic demonstrations of solidarity to “sprinkle kindness,” however well intended. Dare I say it, again? Building a culture of positive behaviour is a far a better long-term strategy for schools. It’s also beginning to look like the best way to take back power from the bullies and ensure safer, calmer, more inclusive and purposeful school environments.

Has Pink Shirt Day run its course after fifteen years of annual one-day demonstrations of solidarity?  What is the official message and does it resonate with children and teens afflicted with the worst forms of bullying, homophobia, and gender-based harassment? Can its internal contradictions be resolved in the coming years?

Sinking Classrooms: What’s Wrong with “Building Thinking Classrooms” in Mathematics?

A Mathematics teaching craze known as “Building Thinking Classrooms.” Is now sweeping across North American K-12 education. With post-pandemic student math scores languishing and senior administrators scrambling for a ‘quick fix’, BTC has quickly taken over classrooms with its small group engagement activities and wall-mounted strip white boards known as “vertical learning spaces.” It’s also acquired a new and rather cheeky moniker on social media – #sinking classrooms.

Since its founder Simon Fraser University education professor Peter Liljedahl spoke at the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association’s Toronto conference (May 2, 2015), BTC has expanded from its British Columbia origins, spread around the world, and proliferated in classrooms. It easily captured school system leaders and was seeded in local professional development sessions for school administrators and curriculum consultants. It has great appeal to principals and teachers, often with little mathematics background, steeped in “progressive’ teaching methods attempting to ‘hook kids’ and overcome their math anxieties,

University mathematics professors, specialist teachers, and engaged parents are beginning to raise serious objections to Peter Liljedahl’s math teaching philosophy, its limited research basis, and visible impact on students already struggling in mathematics. While Liljedahl’s approach is purportedly backed-up by research, that is now attracting more critical scrutiny.  Leading Canadian mathematics expert Dr Anna Stokke of the University of Winnipeg is very skeptical about its research basis and seriously questioning its widespread use in classrooms.

The whole approach is rooted in progressive teaching philosophy and espouses a popular and largely discredited strategy known as “minimally guided classroom instruction.” Most lessons begin with students assigned tasks in groups of 2-3 or 4 and asked to collaborate on problem-solving.

Here’s how it works: The groups are randomly selected, purportedly to promote connection and different thinking. With a minimum of direct instruction, it all revolves around vertical learning, random groupings, and a wide variety of curricular and non-curricular thinking tasks. Essentially, every day in math class, students are mostly left alone, in groups, to figure out the answers.

Liljedahl’s book, Building Thinking Classrooms, is described by Nova Scotia math teachers as “the bible” and the walls of many math classrooms are covered in “vertical learning spaces” (whiteboards). A patented commercial product, known as “wipebooks,” is tied-in with the consultant’s work and, in PD sessions, they are freely distributed to teachers, especially in schools affiliated with the Halifax Regional Centre for Education

American mathematics educator Michael Pershan, author of Teaching Mathematics with Examples, was one of the first to raise objections. The founder makes “big claims” that the approach is research-based based upon four academic articles, but, in his view, “the evidence is weak.”  Surveying his supporting studies, Pershan found that “it doesn’t support big generalizations.”

A few examples will suffice: Liljedahl’s research measures engagement but not learning; it focuses on only two aspects, engagement with vertical whiteboards and homework; it counts teacher uptake as engagement; and it is entirely based upon older students with some math background. Most critical of all, there’s no indication of how the test groups of students were selected or any explanation of how his percentages are derived in his reports.

The BTC philosophy has some appeal because it creates a buzz of activity. It gained a foothold because its founder is engaging and it works best with teachers who have prior knowledge of mathematics. Regular students struggling in the subject, left to fend for themselves, tend to get lost and either tune out or act out in class. That’s the dominant view of several teachers who spoke with me but, sad to say, insisted on remaining anonymous for fear of repercussions.

“Creative thinking” is the buzzword of our time and anything attached to it attracts senior administrators looking to make an impact. Right across Canada a sizable proportion of the teachers in math classrooms have only a smattering of mathematics background or are teaching “out of field.”  Student engagement is their priority and BTC fills that bill, even if it doesn’t improve students’ mastery of mathematics nor deepen problem-solving skills.

School leaders know their audience. “Nobody reads the papers,” Pershan points out. “Very few people care about getting this right. And yet, apparently, almost everybody cares a great deal about the perception that some new thing is rooted in research. It opens doors, hearts, and minds.”  It also generates speaking tours, substantial consulting fees, and sucks-up time and resources better spent actually teaching kids how to do math and get the correct answers.

Engaged parents exposed to “Building Thinking Skills” promotional meetings are beginning to raise questions and unlikely to go away. Peter Liljedahl claims to be building “thinking classrooms” (BTC, 2016a, p. 364), but parents are getting a one-sided sales pitch and critical questions being brushed aside. It did not go over well in Berkeley Heights public schools, where a November 2022 parent survey revealed that the vast majority of parents and students found BTC ineffective and petitioned the school district to suspend the program.

One razor-sharp Greater New York City parent, Virginie Delwart, active with Berkley Heights Community Watch, claimed that many students were struggling to master math in the program and it was dividing both her family and the community. Too many honours students were bombing their assessments, and weak students with learning challenges were completely lost.

The BTC model is saddled with the unfortunate label of “sinking classrooms.” Much of the pushback is well-founded. One thing is clear: It’s unlikely to improve student math scores or raise achievement.

Why did Peter Liljedahl’s “Building Thinking Classrooms” find a receptive audience with school leaders and become the latest craze in Mathematics education?  Where is the evidence that BTC is soundly-based on research or that it works in teaching mathematics to students? How much of provincial and district PD math budgets now go to BTC and the associated wipeboards?  Is it another harmless exercise in engaging students or are there unintended consequences?          

Pandemic School System Shutdowns: Was Closing School for Months a Forgivable Blunder?

Preventative health measures, such as masking, vaccines and rapid tests were effective at stopping schools and daycares from becoming vectors for the spread of COVID-19 during the peak of the 2020-2022 pandemic.  What’s less recognized is that school closures themselves had a negligible effect on containing the virus, the whole rationale for the shutdowns.

Closing schools for so long, it now appears, was a mistake because of the attendant and unanticipated problems that arose in its wake – measurable learning loss, teen mental health issues, social isolation, and disrupted services for society’s neediest children.

Those earth-shaking claims are not really new, but they have now found confirmation in the final report of a McMaster University study, published in February 2024, in The Lancet, one of the world’s leading academic journals in medical science. It was based upon actual evidence from studies, databases and websites from May 2020 and then updated 18 times over the pandemic before finalizing the conclusions.

McMaster health researcher Sarah Neil-Sztramko and her team rattled a few public health and education authorities with their definitive findings. Children and teens belong in school, supported by preventative measures (proper ventilation, vaccines, masks and rapid tests) and school system shutdowns were simply less effective in infection prevention and control.

What was the role of schools and day cares in COVID-19 transmission?  Armed with the evidence-based research, we now know that children and teens can stay in the classroom when these infection prevention and control measures are in place because it didn’t result in spikes of the corona virus in the community or put pressure on the health-care system.

Lead researcher Neil-Sztramko and her team were refreshingly honest about the biggest blunder.  When COVID hit, Ontario provincial and public health decision-makers were not only caught-off guard but unprepared, but unsure about how and when to safely re-open and operate schools and daycares.

“There was so much about the COVID-19 virus that we didn’t know at that time,” Neil-Sztramko told the Hamilton Spectator. “At the very first phase of the pandemic, we were working blind. We knew that the virus was causing a real strain on the health-care system and so extreme measures were put in place to curb the spread while we really didn’t have much information to know what measures might be most effective.”

Provincial and public health leaders were severely handicapped by the near absence of sound medical research evidence upon which to base their decisions about school closures during the pandemic, resulting in different responses across the country.

Provincial premiers, education ministers and deputy ministers claimed to be following “public health directives” which, it turns out, were backed-up by partial or inconclusive evidence. Public school systems were shut down for between 8 weeks and 27 weeks, with Ontario leading the pack at 135 days. What’s worse – that number doesn’t include individual classroom closures or time away from school because of exposure to the virus, COVID symptoms or a positive test.

The academic and social costs of suspending school for so long has come home to roost over the past two years. “We definitely saw the downside and the unintended consequences of school closures,” Neil-Sztramko confirmed in the media.  “At the student level in terms of social, emotional and mental health, and some of the learning outcomes down the road. We also know the negative impact that it had on parents and caregivers who are trying to work from home while taking care of children in that balancing act.”

Preconceived ideas about the spread of the virus and the susceptibility of children were not borne out during the COVId-19 period. As time went on, medical experts and health professionals discovered it was air-borne and did not affect children as severely as adults. The report is conclusive: Whether schools were opened or closed didn’t have any effect on how COVID spread.

“When schools were reopened or closed down again, it really didn’t have a huge impact on levels of community transmission,” says Neil-Sztramko. “Rather, the patterns that we saw in school were really reflective of the patterns of transmission that were occurring in the communities already.”

Without sound, evidence-based research, policy-makers resort to ‘making it up as they go along’ or, put in clearer terms, muddling through a crisis. What’s the big lesson?  The McMaster research lead put it this way: “The importance of being able to incorporate data into the decision-making as time goes on rather than just sticking with that initial decision… (based on not a lot of information), but being nimble and adaptive as new scientific evidence becomes available.”

All of this research begs a deceptively simple question – is it all a forgivable error and what are the chances it may happen again?

The Age of Identity: Will School Leaders – Battered by the Storm – Come Out on the Other Side?

Two self-declared “old, white straight” North American education professors, Dennis Shirley and Andy Hargreaves, have gone out on a limb.  Their latest book, The Age of Identity: Who Do Our Kids Think They Are? And How Do We Help Them Belong? (Corwin Press, 2024), wades into “identity politics” in K-12 education and attempts to bring clarity to the whole debate for the current generation of embattled school leaders.

Troubled by the divisive “culture wars,” the educational leadership luminaries, Dennis Shirley, former Professor of Formative Education at Boston College, and Andy Hargreaves, renowned educational change theorist now at University of Ottawa, have taken a risk and stepped into the breach. It’s actually the third in a series of leadership guides in a Corwin series akin to education administration for enlightened dummies.

Building upon commissioned educational field studies focusing on “engagement” and “student well-being,” the third book is more improvisational and speculative.  Corwin book editor, former black educator based in New York City, Tanya Gans, came close to the mark in a recent live stream podcast. Confronting the current storm of controversy in American schools, it somehow manages to provide “nuance and clarity” without “being clear.” That may well be the secret to survival in today’s beleaguered school systems.

Confronting the Storm

While it purports to explain what’s happening to our children in and out of schools, it’s actually a self-help guide for school superintendents, district leaders and principals caught up in a storm and looking for direction. “The age of achievement and effort,” Dennis Shirley claimed speaking to the City Club of Cleveland in January 2024, has morphed into the “age of identity” and teenagers need help sorting out “role identity confusion” and finding confidence and a sense of who they really are as human beings.

Shirley and Hargreaves are a team of school change theorists deeply committed to social justice.  Seeing the pandemic generation struggling to find meaning and purpose and educational leaders showing signs of fatigue, this short, 180-page ‘how to” guide ventures into the minefield of identity politics.  It offers simplified versions of three key touchstones, Erik Erikson’s Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development (1950), Shelley Moore’s One Without the Other (2016), and Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Karev’s Getting to Diversity: What Works and What Doesn’t (2022). It’s aimed at busy and event-driven provincial and district educational leaders with little time to read but looking for a ‘quick hit’ to keep them current.

Buoyed by the effusive praise of the Corwin corps of education progressives, led by American education reformer Diane Ravich, New York State school consultant Peter DeWitt, and C21 Learning Canada champion Tom D’Amico, they return to a successful formula and attempt to find the old magic. Finding unity and coherence in a polarized, divided world may well be foolhardy, but Shirley and Hargreaves deserve some credit for sticking their necks out amidst the cross-fire on the front lines of the education culture war.

Making people more aware of oppression and layers of oppression has become a major driver of educational discourse, particularly in North American faculties of education. As educational progressives, Shirley and Hargreaves are committed to addressing oppression in all its forms, racial, class, ethnicity and gender.  “We have to confront oppression openly and honestly,” they stated at the book launch. Having acknowledged that, Shirley and Hargreaves do contest the prevailing view of “intersectionality.’

Critical intersectionality, coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, may have made us more aware of the “multiple oppressions” experienced by racialized and marginalized groups, but it has its limitations. Awakened identities can, they point out, be positive and affirming and take the form of “celebratory intersectionality” best exemplified by international rap music star Drake who prides himself on being black, Jewish, and Torontonian. A third, and less recognized form is “conflicted intersectionality” experienced by groups which are ignored or treated unfairly for being representative of both the oppressors and the oppressed, most notably mixed-race children, Protestant sect non-conformists (Mennonites) and poor working-class whites.

Fashioning a New Narrative

Shirley and Hargreaves’ The Age of Identity makes a valiant attempt to demonstrate that divisive identity politics might be transformed into a unifying vision and set of operating principles. The so-called “New Narrative” will have a familiar ring to many Canadian school leaders, district consultants, and principals.  The big takeaway is actually retooled from the 2017-18 Ontario “Student Well-Being” project. “What’s essential for some, is good for all” is, once again, presented as a virtual panacea.

Troubled by current disruptions and resistance, Shirley and Hargreaves claim that the open divisions over the prevalence of “critical race theory,” top-down DEI directives, and the marginalizing of dissenters, can be overcome. While not shying away from addressing the “great oppressions,” they see a critical need to emphasize “what we have in common.”

Adopting a “what is good for some is good for all” approach is presented as an antidote to what is causing the resistance. New narratives, Hargreaves says, should “not be built upon guilt and shame” or, perhaps inadvertently, advance “the self-interest of any group.”  That may be a veiled reference to the controversial Toronto District School Board’s 2021-23 anti-racist program contracted out to the KOJO Institute linked to the August 2023 suicide of veteran principal Richard Bilkszto.

The book ends with a somewhat peculiar lyrical call to action. Confronting the controversies head-on, according to Shirley and Hargreaves, will require not only intestinal fortitude, but courage and bravery, two attributes honed on the battlefield.  “When you are in the midst of the storm,” they exhort lead educators, “don’t turn away,” Then comes an educational change parable: “Be a Buffalo, stand firm, and turn into the storm.”  Indeed, there’s safety in numbers, so “be a herd of buffalo” — and presumably a herd heading in the right direction.

Forging Unity out of Particularities – A Prognosis

Shirley and Hargreaves’ latest book, The Age of Identity, is the work of two romantic progressives whose idealism has not dimmed with the passage of time.  “Try to create a world by getting closer to our kids,” Hargreaves told Peter DeWitt, “A world where we are closer to one another and where identity doesn’t divide us but becomes important to all of us as we develop as human beings over time.”

With ‘culture wars’ raging in and around schools, it may take saviours to transform the “age of identity” into a “radical common sense” counter-movement which succeeds in “bringing us together rather than driving us apart.” It’s by no means certain that “humanists” will weather that storm and “come out on the other side.”

Why did the two school change theorists wade into the storm stirred up by “identity politics” in K-12 education?  Where does the latest book fit in the Dennis Shirley – Andy Hargreaves trilogy published by Corwin Press?  Why did the book attract such lavish praise but so so little independent scrutiny and feedback? Should school leaders “be like a Buffalo” in turning back the storm?  How realistic is the prescription of “forging unity out of particularities” presented in the book?

Post-Pandemic Student Absenteeism: Where’s the Canadian Data?

Chronic absenteeism has reached crisis proportions.  One in five children in the United Kingdom are persistently absent from school and now described as “lost children.” The “staggering figure” has been identified as a national education crisis.  In a rare show of unanimity, Education Secretary Jillian Keegan and Labour shadow secretary Bridget Phillipson both agree that it threatens the “life chances” of today’s generation.

Opening the London Sunday Times of January 7, 2024, a front-page news story grabbed U.K. readers attention.  “1 in 4 parents now think it’s fine for kids to skip school.”  That startling statistic was based upon a YouGov poll conducted in December 2023 for a national thinktank, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). It revealed, according to CSJ chief executive Andy Cook, that there was “fundamental work to be done in rebuilding the contract between families and schools.”

Everywhere you look education systems are now coming to terms with the new reality.  “Chronic absenteeism” defined as missing 10 per cent of the school year (i.e., 18 days or more) has been normalized in post-pandemic times. What student data we have presents a consistent pattern across North America and from province-to-province across Canada.

Student absenteeism rates have more than doubled.  American school data, compiled by Stanford Education professor Thomas Dee, confirmed that the national average was 28 per cent of students in 2020-21, double that of 2018-19.  In Michigan, it rose to 39 per cent during the pandemic.  More recent data shows some improvement, but some cities still report absenteeism rates of 40 per cent.

Finding reliable Canadian data requires considerable digging.  In Ontario, the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board is fairly representative. It’s regular student absenteeism rate rose from 3 to 4 per cent in 2020 to between 8 and 14 per cent in November 2022.  That same month, Manitoba’s largest school district in Winnipeg reported that 1 in 5 students were absent, considerably more than the typical rate of 12 to 14 per cent.

Provinces claim that they do not track rates of chronic absenteeism, but raw attendance data is reported in most cases. In New Brunswick’s Anglophone School District West, the average absentee rate in early 2023 (February to April) hovered around 2.4 days per month for grades 9-12 and around 1.8 days for K-8 students. Projected over 181 school days, record numbers of students were in danger of being chronically absent from school.

Until recently, Canadian researchers and school districts have been essentially “absent” on the matter of tracking student absenteeism. That very point was made quite effectively in a rather provocative September 2021 Canadian Journal of Education article by University of Ottawa researcher Anton Birioukov.

Student absenteeism in Canada tends to run higher than that in comparable Western countries. The number of Canadian students reporting skipping school on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has grown by 5.4% between 2015 and 2018 (OECD, 2018, 2019). During the same period the United Kingdom saw absenteeism drop by 5.6%, and the United States saw a tremendous 18.8% decline. Up until 2018, both countries reported lower absenteeism rates (UK 18.8%; US 19.9%) than Canada (23.2%).

Birioukov’s review of faculty profiles revealed that “no Canadian educational scholar investigates absenteeism as their primary area of research,” and he saw that as a critical policy issue. “The lack of empirical knowledge concerning student absenteeism,” he claimed, “is a contributing factor to the high levels of absenteeism evident in Canada.” His article was essentially “a call to action” for Canadian academics to provide the research to assist in addressing the problem.

Current rates of student absenteeism do threaten to undermine our relative success in instilling in the populace a commitment to ensuring school-age children are in regular attendance.  Alarming rates of absenteeism suggest that parents as well as children do not prioritize school attendance to the degree they did a generation ago, when compulsory school attendance was generally accepted by a cross-section of school communities across the socio-economic spectrum.

Persistence of high absentee rates demonstrates that it is not a passing phenomenon. Schooling is becoming optional and it will have dire consequences for the “life chances’ of the pandemic generation. Winning students and their parents back is the strategic education issue of our time.

Why have Canadian researchers and school authorities been “absent” when it comes to tracking rates of chronic absenteeism?  Without accurate data how can we assesses the seriousness of the problem?  What role do parents play in ensuring regular school attendance? What can be done to reinstitute school-community attendance officers with a mandate to win students back to regular attendance?

Measuring Up and Down, PISA 2022: Whatever Happened to the Education Superpower?

Six years ago, a positively gushing August 2017 BBC News story anointed Canada as an “education superpower” on the basis of its recent Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) scores in mathematics, science and reading. Today, after the release of the PISA 2022 assessments, such a claim would be dismissed as preposterous.

On the latest round of tests for 15-year-olds, Canadian students continued to slide in mathematics, reading and science.  In Mathematics, the prime focus of the 2022 global assessment, our students dropped again from 512 in 2018 to 497 in 2022, a 35-point decline since 2003. Concerns about taking a “COVID Hit” raised in my November 29 research report, Pandemic Fallout (Cardus Foundation) were borne out in the latest scores.

Our national education agency, the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC), demonstrated, once again, its tendency to denialism. Crowing about finishing in 9^th place in Mathematics means little when we are steadily losing ground to the global leaders, the Asian powerhouses of Singapore, Macau, China (Taipei), Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea, and three fast improving European states, Estonia and Switzerland.

What’s more concerning is that the decline is consistent from 2000 to the present right across the board in reading and science as well as mathematics. Canadian student skills in reading mirror the downward trend, dropping from 524 in 2009 to 507 in 2022, a decline of 17 points. It marginally better in science but still consistent with the pattern of steady decline over the past two decades.

Apologists for Canada’s declining performance are running out of rationalizations.  Cherry-picking the mathematics data the best the CMEC communications team could come up with is that some 78 per cent of Canadian students achieved Level 2, signifying that they are functionally numerate. The overall decline in mathematics, reading and science is, rather sadly, explained away because of the “trend seen in the majority of participating countries and economies.”

The PISA 2002 Study report is a rather thick, almost impenetrable, quantitative research study that takes weeks to digest and analyze even for veteran researchers. The Canadian national sub-report, Measuring Up: Canadian Results, OECD PISA 2022, is helpful in summarizing Canadian student performance levels with provincial/territorial breakdowns.

The pandemic fallout was expected, but all the PISA 2022 results did is accentuate and accelerate the longer-term downward slide.  It’s serious when the OECD Education tsar, Andreas Schleicher, describes the Canadian student decline in mathematics as a legitimate concern.

Two Canadian provinces, Alberta and Quebec, are responsible for keeping our PISA results from being a “mission-critical crisis.”   In Mathematics, Quebec students continue to head the class, scoring 514, some 10 percentage points above Alberta. When it comes to Reading, Alberta leads the pack at 525, albeit down from 532 in 2018.  All of the Atlantic provinces tanked on the PISA 2022 tests in Mathematics with Newfoundland (459), New Brunswick (468), and Nova Scotia (470) falling below the OECD average.

Canada’s “learning province,” Ontario is in a slow downward spiral, in spite of its mammoth education budget.  On PISA 2022, Ontario students sunk to new lows in Mathematics registering a 495, down 35 points over 20 years. Reading scores in Ontario were better at 512, but some 19 points below 2009. With the Ontario Right to Read reforms underway in K to Grade 3, student reading competencies should be higher from 2028 onward, when that initial cohort turns 15-years-of age.

Learning loss is real and the pandemic generation has not rebounded.  What the PISA 2022 student scores reveal is that, in Canada, and worldwide, it there is a “significant learning deficit” and it continues four years after the COVID-19 outbreak and massive school disruption. Recognizing the problem is the first step in shattering the complacency and getting past the “pandemic fatigue.”

Getting our students ‘back-on-track’ will take courageous educational leadership, significant changes in school culture, implementation of the “science of learning” in classrooms, and new policies aimed at reclaiming the minds of students far too absorbed in cyberworlds. It’s all a matter of improving the effectiveness of classroom instruction and being better prepared for the next major disruption in the years ahead.

Why does the public release of PISA student achievement results attract so much global attention?  How have the PISA scores in mathematics and reading become proxies for the quality of school systems? Whic are the most important revelations – the actual scores, country rankings, or the longer-term trends?  Do we focus too much on the math and reading scores and miss out on some potentially more significant findings buried in the technical reports?  

Education Fallout: Where did Canadian School Systems fall short in responding to the Pandemic?

Students in Canada’s K-12 schools have not bounced back.  My latest report, Pandemic Fallout: Learning Loss, Collateral Damage, and Recovery in Canada’s Schools, (Cardus, November 29, 2023) identified the root of the problem and challenged governments, educators, and parents to recognize and respond to the deep and lasting effects of pandemic disruptions on education.  

A week later, my essential analysis and conclusions were borne out in the latest Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) report (December 5, 2023)  testifying to the serious decline in the performance of Canadian students in mathematics, reading and science from 2018 to the end of 2022.

Nearly four years after the first COVID outbreak, my report shrugged-off the prevailing ‘pandemic fatigue’ and tackled a few important questions: How much learning loss have students suffered, and how can we respond? How did the pandemic impact students’ social development and mental health? How was the response of schools different across the educational spectrum? How can we do things better next time? 

What happened during the education disruption?  Surveying the comprehensive, albeit admittedly dense, heavily footnoted study, these were the essential findings:

• Learning loss is real, and a substantial learning deficit arose early in the pandemic and has persisted over time.
• The ‘knowledge gap’ is affecting students from elementary grades through high school, and is more pronounced in mathematics than in reading.
• Children with special needs and those from marginalized communities suffered the most and continue to do so.
• As many as 200,000 Canadian students went missing from school at the height of the first COVID-19 wave of infections.
• Lower-income families were disproportionately affected, increasing the knowledge gap between students from affluent households and those from disadvantaged households.
• Smaller and more autonomous schools fared better and provided more consistent, mostly uninterrupted, learning.
• No one emerged unscathed and but students in some settings were cushioned, challenged, and better supported.

Canadian provincial and district education authorities, the report demonstrates, were caught completely off-guard by the pandemic crisis, minimized the potential impact of prolonged school closures, abandoned system-wide student testing and generated little or no data on its impact on students, teachers, or families. Compared to most other OCED countries, Canada suffered from what I termed “data starvation” – flying blind though the pandemic while closing schools for extended periods of time, averaging 130 lost days (more than 25 weeks) from province-to-province across Canada (UNESCO 2023).

Large-scale assessment research—which is used to draw reliable and comparative measures of student achievement and system-level judgments—was either suspended or limited during the pandemic across Canada. This is both shocking and critical, as without the benefit of aggregated student data, researchers and policy-makers are left to piece together the pandemic’s impact on student achievement. Importantly, this has damaged Canada’s longstanding reputation as a global leader in education.

Instead of stopping with a diagnosis, the report does review best practice in implementing immediate learning recovery programs and in addressing the critical need for a broader future ‘education crisis’ response strategy.

Best Practice in Implementing “Catch-Up” Initiatives

Recognizing the problem is the first step, but tackling learning recovery is a greater challenge. Three immediate responses come highly recommended by leading experts (Srivastava, 2021, McKinsey & Company, 2020):

1. Revamp the entire K–12 curriculum to facilitate students catching up.
2. Focus on the core competencies of reading & literacy as well as pro-social skills.
3. Initiate targeted interventions, including intensive tutoring & summer catch-up sessions.

Best Strategy for Longer-Term Recovery

First and foremost, Canadian education ministers and school leaders need to be much better at tapping into research and strategies from elsewhere, and, in particular, from leading systems and research institutes in the EU, the UK, and the United States.  

Our overall strategy, modelled by UNESCO and World Bank researchers, should be informed by a “crisis-sensitive approach” (Srivatava, 2021). Effective, evidence-based pandemic educational-policy planning recovery should involve four key considerations:

1. managing a crisis and instituting first responses
2. planning for (interrupted) reopening with appropriate measures
3. sustained crisis-sensitive planning, with considerations of assessing risks for the most vulnerable
4. adjusting existing policies and strengthening policy dialogue

Most important of all – break down the silos and get to the heart of the problem. Cage-busting leadership will be needed to disrupt established routines jealously guarded by the institutional gatekeepers. Collective planning exercises with cross-sectoral collaboration and community engagement from marginalized groups should be a sustained part of pandemic-recovery planning exercises.

Conclusion: Prepare Now for the Next Global Disruption

Consistent, reliable, and evidence-based data is needed if we are to effectively respond to the full range of the pandemic’s longer-term impacts on children, teachers, and families. A new Canadian education-research agenda will be necessary for that to happen. Tackling pandemic learning loss, tracking student progress, and getting students back on track are of vital and immediate strategic importance because we are still engaged in a recovery mission, with no room for complacency. Those are the biggest lessons of the pandemic education fallout for education policymakers, school district leaders, parents, teachers, and families.

Where did Canadian education authorities go wrong in responding to the global pandemic?  How well did we prepare for such a calamity?  Who really called the shots – provincial public health authorities?  In hindsight, were schools closed for far too long?  How well did we address the widespread “learning loss” and its collateral damage affecting students, teachers, families and schools?  What have we learned and will we be better prepared the next time?